J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. wrote: > Ricardo, > I think we would be more inclined to fall at > your feet in fawning admiration if you did not > keep giving us major bloopers like this last one > about large mammals. > Last time I checked there still are elephants > in Asia. > Barkley Rosser ____________ But they are not as big as the African ones! Cheers, ajit sinha p.s. I think one needs to be clear whether we are talking about capitalism or industrialization. Conceptually they may not be the same thing. > -----Original Message----- > From: Ricardo Duchesne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Monday, September 27, 1999 12:38 PM > Subject: [PEN-L:11740] Re: Role of Total Foreign Trade > > > > >> Yeah, but you're working with outmoded data. > > > >It is the best available, most recent data out there! Check the > >year of the sources I cited. > > > >LP: > > If you are serious about these > >> questions, you should examine the chapter on slavery and primitive > >> accumulation in Blackburn's book that I posted from already, including > the > >> devastating numbers pointing out the nearly equal ratio between "triangle > >> trade" profits and fixed capital investment in Great Britain in 1770. > > > >Yes, this was one of the few sources which went beyond such *absolute* > >numbers as how many tons of gold were extracted from the Americas > >(facts which do not address the role of the colonial trade *as > >compared to other sectors of the economy*). I did not respond because > >I thought I better post the stuff on total trade before Micheal > >had enough. From what I recall that stuff by Blackburn (took a > >course with him 'The strange history of Marxism') lacked a context in > >terms of who he is arguing with and where ere he got those numbers and > >what exactly they include. But I' ll I check it again, if I still > >have it. > > > >> I don't know what your deal is, Ricardo, but you are stuck in the 1980s > on > >> a lot of these questions. I recall that you posted once on how the Mayans > >> self-destructed because of anti-ecological farming practices. This too > was > >> an argument based on out-of-date evidence. More recent scholarship has > >> refuted this claim rather definitively. I might add that Blaut takes up > >> this question as well. It seems that part of the Eurocentrist arsenal is > a > >> belief that capitalism did not take hold in places like Africa and > Central > >> America because of "shifting agriculture" practices which involve burning > >> fields and then moving on to new locales. It turns out that such > practices > >> do not damage the soil at all since fires were not allowed to get out of > >> control and were appropriate to less than fertile soil conditions. > > > >Dont buy this 'out of date' argument which seems to be the only one > >Blaut has against me. I already showed here that one of those sources he > >cited as new and anti-eurocentric contains an artilce by Parker, and I > >can cite other articles there in that book edited by Tracy. But the > >fact is that a lot has been published recently which challenges the > >stuff Blaut keeps parading around. If he keeps mentioning Goody I > >will forward here my own analysis of that book which I posted last > >year to the World history list, to which he has yet to respond. > > > >I don't know what slash-burn agriculture has to do with capitalism, > >but the fact is that hunters and gatherers exterminated all large > >animals in the World except in Africa where such large animals were > >fortunate to grow side by side with the evolving australopithecines > >and homo species, thereby learning to adapt to them. > > > > > >> Louis Proyect > >> > >> (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html) > >> > >> > > > >
