"Rod Hay" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/19/99 05:31PM
Many of the so-called early economists were in fact merchants, writing
phamplets in order to influence government policy in their favour. This is a
bias in the records that remain. Quotes on trade from the mercantilists can
easily be matched by
Ricardo: "Should remember that many Marxists, including Wood, do not think
the
colonial trade was that important."
Ricardo, I own all of Wood's books and waited until I got home to check up
on this. Her newest "The Origin of Capitalism" does not seem to take sides
on O'Brien-Darity type
"Ricardo Duchesne" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/20/99 11:46AM
Ricardo: "Should remember that many Marxists, including Wood, do not think
the
colonial trade was that important."
(
Charles: Do you grant that Marx himself, in the Section in _Capital_ on the primitive
accumulation,
Ricardo:
Had you been less concerned about Skippy you might have not skipped
the obvious thought that, if Wood does not even use the word
"colonialism" in a book dealing with the origins of capitalism, it is
because she does not think it was important at all.
The question is not really
"Ricardo Duchesne" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/20/99 11:39AM
Do you have any stats on the number of person hours worked in Europe and the number
of person hours worked in the colonies by slaves and semi-slaves at the rosy dawn of
capital ?
Actually Blaut, back in 1989, (SS, Fall) framed his
Ronald Bailey, in his essential chapter ""Out of Sight, Out of Mind": The
Struggle of African American Intellectuals Against the Invisibility of the
Slave(ry) Trade in World Economic History" in his final note (note 18)
writes:
"In fact, I would attribute the intense discussion over the slave
At 10:46 AM 9/20/99 -0500, Mathew Forstater wrote:
McDonald (1979, 67) in reviewing the recent scholarship on the Williams
thesis, linked _Capitalism and Slavery_ to issues in the work of such
writers as Daniel Moynihan and Gunnar Myrdal, saying Williams's book posed
"a fundamental challenge
Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/20/99 11:52AM
I forwarded Ellen Wood some of this exchange and she answered me with
a few introductory sentences and some excerpts from recent writings.
Doug
-
[excerpts]:
from Origin of Capitalism, pp. 100-101:
-clip-
+For those who regard
At 08:33 AM 09/18/1999 -0400, you wrote:
Charles: In other words, you would have to be claiming that the European
total work hours of the European workers was greater than that of the
non-European slaves and semi-slaves at the rosy dawn of capitalism. Do you
have studies comparing the numbers of
Doug,
That's right, read below, according to Wood, colonialism was not important
in the *origins of capitalism*, which is what I said, which is not to
say that Wood's interpretation is correct.
[introductory comment]: "As you'll see in the extracts appended here
from Origin and the summer
Peter Drucker has an article in the latest Atlantic Monthly (October
1999) entitled "Beyond the Information Revolution". It has the usual
unsubstantiated grandiose claims, selective anecdotal arguments, and
ebullient puffery for markets.
Has anyone read this who would care to comment?
Bill
As I remarked before. It is a mistake to take the mecantilist as
representative of government thinking of the 17th century. They were for the
most part merchants and East India Company employees, making a case to the
government for favourable policies. The landed interests did not have to do
Hi, Jim. Welcome to pen-l.
First of all I agree at least to some degree
with many of your points. I do think that the West
Europeans gained substantially by getting into and
setting up plantations, mines, etc. in the Americas
and exploiting the local labor horrendously. I have
some
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/20/99 12:50PM
At 08:33 AM 09/18/1999 -0400, you wrote:
Charles: In other words, you would have to be claiming that the European
total work hours of the European workers was greater than that of the
non-European slaves and semi-slaves at the rosy dawn of
It is in the pages of Marx's _Capital_ that the straightforward suggestion
is made that the colonial system functioned as an offset to the fall in the
rate of profit in Britain. For Marx, once capitalism is in its mature
phase, machinery is introduced to save on socially necessary labor and
Jim,
One more question. You say that Chinese made
it "to the West" before Marco Polo and then cited
Chinese merchants being in India in the 9th century.
That may be "the West" from a Chinese perspective,
but not many others. I'm talking at least Constantinople,
the traditional western end
Louis,
We have no disagreement here. Did I ever
say that Columbus was out just exploring? No.
My argument all along has been that there was
already a sufficient development of capitalist
institutions in Western Europe to support financing
such expeditions with the hope of obtaining profits.
Oh, please, little Stevie grow up! The issue was: did colonialism,
according to Wood, play a role (never mined whether it was a major
one) in the *origins of capitalism*? NO, she does not even use the
word in her analysis of the ORIGINS of capitalism. Read her
excepts. It might do you
Ricardo,
I don't hug Lou all the time. I have disagreed with him in various posts
in the past...don't take my disagreeing with you so
personally, perhaps you missed those posts or miscomprehended
them...meanwhile, why not answer Henwood's question about your
reading comprehension
Rod's post below (as well as Lou's later response) comes close
to suggesting that the whole debate was pointless. Wood's power
as a historian resides in her capacity to ask the right questions
before she piles up the facts.
Carrol
Carrol, let me repeat once more. This is not a debate about the
"J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/20/99 03:36PM
Louis,
The argument is not that Columbus had some
great love of exploring. The argument is that
capitalism was more insitutionally developed in Europe
and that there was thus a greater motive force from
a desire to make profit
Ricardo Duchesne wrote:
Of course, in the 'introductory comment', Wood
rhetorically tries to play it both ways - keeping the Monthly Review
crowd happy - writing "its [of the colonies] contribution to the
development of capitalism can't be explained without explaining the
new, internal
I think there might be some confusion, as I mentioned before. Wood locates the
origin of capitalist social relations in agriculture. The discussion here
concerned that question of how the accumulation occurred once the social
relations were in place.
Ricardo Duchesne wrote:
No, it looks like
STEALTH SOFTWARE SPIES ON WORKERS
The newly upgraded Investigator 2.0 software, from WinWhatWhere,
monitors
every keystroke made by an employee and then e-mails a detailed report
of
the worker's activities to the boss. While the software has been used
to
unmask embezzlers and corporate spies,
The verdict from the most recent debates regarding our understanding of
the history and relationship of slavery and the slave trade to the rise of
capitalism is not yet in. But I am certain that the Africans who were the
victims of this gruesome commerce, knowing what actually happened and
"J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote:
If they were so, it was
because of something going on inside of Europe, not some
random accident.
Barkley, Yoshie has posted lately (perhaps on lbo) in reference to
the role of contingency in human history (echoing Gould's arguments
on the role of
Carrol Cox wrote:
I see Wood's concern with the origins of capitalist social
relations as of crucial political importance while the debate over the
growth of capitalism is mostly an empirical matter that does not
directly impact on politics.
I agree with your first point and halfway accept
At 06:14 PM 9/20/99 -0400, you wrote:
Anyone but a new classical? Well, it's been
relegated to a small box in a late chapter in the
New Keynesian principles text by Greg Mankiw,
much praised as the new wave by many. There
seems to be a concerted effort going on to deny
the existence of
- Original Message -
From: Gunder Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 20, 1999 3:54 PM
Subject: EH.R: Kondratieff Cycles
- EH.RES POSTING -
On Thu, 16 Sep 1999, D. McCloskey wrote:
The trouble with the idea of
Barkley,
I thought you probably had this approach, but I wanted to make sure.
When you say:
Again, there is no approving in my arguments here. I have
described the Europeans as "aggressive and rapacious."
But I don't think positing some inherent degree of greater
aggressiveness or
Mathew Forstater wrote:
Every line of this section in Darity is crucial, and unfortunately I can't
type every line in. Please see how Darity puts this into political and
economic-theoretical context (Darity, 1992) Key here (Sam P. if you
are reading this!!) is the two paragraphs on
Rod Hay wrote:
Many of the so-called early economists were in fact merchants, writing
phamplets in order to influence government policy in their favour. This is a
bias in the records that remain. Quotes on trade from the mercantilists can
easily be matched by quotes from the likes of Petty
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/20/99 05:18PM Wojtek replies: This was
precisely the point I tried to make by objecting
to the "exploitationist" explanations of the European development.
Somehow I missed this. I agree with the rest of what Wojtek said in his two
messages responding to mine.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/20/99 05:24PM
Charles writes: Seems clear that Marx's attitude (see below and other
discussions of modern slavery by Marx) on this issue was that modern
slavery did produce surplus value that was convertible in the capitalist
system into capitalist profit. The
On Mon, 20 Sep 1999, Brad De Long wrote:
landlords. In Asia these days this argument easily turns into an
argument against democracy. And for this reason I have always feared
it: the argument that technocracy needs to be *completely* insulated
from politics has seemed to me to be a
El 18 Sep 99 a las 19:13, Charles Brown nos dice(n):
Barkley writes:
Of course this does not answer the crucial question as to
why the Chinese
did not go around the Cape of Good Hope in the 1400s while
the Portuguese did in 1497 with Vasco da Gama. Thus we
had the Portuguese in
Deborah Sklar ... cites a blueprint called The East Asian Miracle,
written by US
Treasury
Secretary Lawrence Summers, in which he urges governments to 'insulate'
themselves from 'pluralist pressures' and to suppress trade unions. This,
she says, became a primary Kopassus role during the
Brad, if it does refer to the book, then I agree with your
interpretation. I do
not recall any calls for repression. The article seems to suggest a different
document. It may or may not be wrong. I put this out to find out
if there was
something to the article.
Brad De Long wrote:
I
Barkley writes:
Clearly there was something that was pushing the
Europeans to have more "desire" to travel long distances
to try to gain profits in various forms than other peoples
at that time. ...
I have questioned that both in terms of was bullion all
that important, was it really
Michael Perelman wrote:
I think there might be some confusion, as I mentioned before. Wood locates the
origin of capitalist social relations in agriculture. The discussion here
concerned that question of how the accumulation occurred once the social
relations were in place.
Yes. But
Charles,
Well, if you prefer, there is one and the same
question here: why did the Europeans do what the
Chinese/Koreans/Japanese did not do? I most
certainly have not put forward any of my attempted
explanations, with which I am not fully satisfied, as
implying any sort of justification.
Anyone but a new classical? Well, it's been
relegated to a small box in a late chapter in the
New Keynesian principles text by Greg Mankiw,
much praised as the new wave by many. There
seems to be a concerted effort going on to deny
the existence of multiplier effect or at least to
Globalization Reporting Review
September 20, 1999
By Dean Baker
Analysis of coverage of foreign economic issues, and IMF and U.S. policy in the New
York Times and Washington Post. Excerpted from the Economic Reporting Review, by Dean
Baker.
You can sign up to receive ERR via email every week
Multiplier effect is simply an increase in economic activity given some
external shock to an economic system. People doing things that they might
not otherwise have done. It is not a disembodied process, whether Samuelson
recognizes it or not. It is the sort of think that any one but a very
Ricardo Duchesne wrote:
Oh, please, little Stevie grow up!
This discussion has been becomming a little testy. Now it is starting to flame out.
We do not need this sort of exchange.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chico, CA 95929
I think Charles has identified the nature of the problem in discussing
these questions with Ricardo. He apparently rejects the core belief of
Marxism, that labor is the source of all value. So instead of seeing the
commonality between Incan descendants working the mines of Peru and
furnishing
Charles writes: Seems clear that Marx's attitude (see below and other
discussions of modern slavery by Marx) on this issue was that modern
slavery did produce surplus value that was convertible in the capitalist
system into capitalist profit. The slave owners in the U.S. South were
capitalists.
(a message I never finished on Friday, before I left town for the weekend.)
In an earlier message I wrote: I actually don't care if one blames _all_
of Europe's rise on exploitation of the rest of the world or if one blames
it _all_ on Europe's internal dynamic.
This is poorly phrased. It
"Ricardo Duchesne" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/20/99 04:21PM
Notice, these are not the words of O'Brien, but of the believer
Darity, who thinks the issue is either-or. O'Brien has long
acknowledge that the colonial trade was significant. So, this is a
non-issue - except, of course, to the
That's right, read below, according to Wood, colonialism was not important
in the *origins of capitalism*, which is what I said, which is not to
say that Wood's interpretation is correct.
[introductory comment]: "As you'll see in the extracts appended here
from Origin and the summer
Lou, you are being deliberately opaque. Barkeley's argument here is
merely a corollary of Wood's polemic against technological determinism.
You seem to assume that to admit that X was technologically possible
for P (but not performed) means that P was deficient. Bullshit. Barkeley's
question is a
My question. Why could not the participants in the debate tried to settle
clearly what issue they were arguing and what its relations to other issues
were before they plunged into an icarian sea of mindnumbing empirical
data? As important as it is to understand the *history* of imperialism,
it is
Ricardo:
How can one compare slave trade to car industry? Everybody knows that
the car industry/or the corporate sector play crucial roles in the
economy in terms of the nature of the goods, finances, research
involved, with substantially deeper/differentiated backward
and forward linkages,
Louis,
The argument is not that Columbus had some
great love of exploring. The argument is that
capitalism was more insitutionally developed in Europe
and that there was thus a greater motive force from
a desire to make profit in Europe than in Northeast
Asia, where certainly there was a
Happily, but with a complete lack of sublety, Fostater declares,
O'Brien and Engerman (the proponents of the "small ratios" approach)
co-wrote a 1991 piece, conceding much of the argument to their opponents,
taking the wind out of the sails of those who base their arguments on
O'Brien's
Barkley Rosser wrote:
Louis,
We have no disagreement here. Did I ever
say that Columbus was out just exploring? No.
Of course you did. That's why you again write the following, to make the
same kind of point which amounts to a comparison between the restless,
missionary-zealous West and
O'Brien and Engerman (the proponents of the "small ratios" approach)
co-wrote a 1991 piece, conceding much of the argument to their opponents,
taking the wind out of the sails of those who base their arguments on
O'Brien's 1982 piece (like Ricardo Duchesne). Of course, perhaps they can
simply
Fostater,
You must admit that Darity - in what you cite below - is all over
the place, shifting his analysis from the slave trade, to the colonial trade, to
total foreign trade, and back to the slave trade - presumably hoping
that one of his arguments will hit the right target. I think I can
Barkley Rosser:
However, I remain unconvinced that the differences were
all that great. Indeed, there was a much easier way to get from
Asia to the Americas than from Europe to the Americas, as the
earlier migrations had already shown.
Barkley, Columbus et al were not into exploring for
With respect to Lenin's discussion of the decline of the stock market, which Doug
quotes, I would say that Lenin is referring to the stock market in the period of the
1800's, which, in line with his overall theme in _Imperialism_ was much more of a free
market as compared with the development
Louis. Where I am coming from sounds very much like this.
Rod
Well then, as Charles Bukowski used to say, that's all right with me.
Louis Proyect
(http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
Carrol,
Isn't this what liberal academics are best at doing? Instead of addressing
the particular context of an argument someone is making (eg. who is it
they are arguing with, over what issue...), they just extrapolate from
whether or not someone mentions a particular word...and then, it
Mat
No need to type all the mecantilists material. You can lift a lot of it from
my web site. I don't have them all yet, but a number of them are there.
The History of Economic Thought Archives
http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html
Rod
Rod Hay
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The
[maybe there are two Darity 1992-- one in AER, one in Inikori and
Engerman--, but interested people will figure it out or ask for
clarification, or are not really interested in which cite they are in, just
the substance, which is fine]
Darity:
Noting Keynes's ch. 23 of the General Theory
Louis. Where I am coming from sounds very much like this.
Rod
Original Message Follows
From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I forwarded Ellen Wood some of this exchange and she answered me with a few
introductory sentences and some excerpts from recent writings.
Doug
Joshua Gee, another mercantilist writer from the same period, in _The Trade
and Navigation of Great Britain Considered_, and "an open letter addressed
to a member of Parliament on pending legislation" as well as other works,
makes his views clear. He describes African trade as:
"very profitable
Ricardo Duchesne wrote:
Doug,
That's right, read below, according to Wood, colonialism was not important
in the *origins of capitalism*, which is what I said, which is not to
say that Wood's interpretation is correct.
[introductory comment]: "As you'll see in the extracts appended here
michael perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/18/99 10:22PM
I don't have any trouble with the proposition to that both the
exploitation of British workers and the rape of the colonial lands
contributed to the development of capitalism.
In a sense, the debate is starting to concede the peripheral
Also contra the "accidental" and "coincidental" character of these phenomena
and relations, see correspondence from Postlethwayt to the Duke of Newcastle
(serving as Secretary of State). Postlethwayt was "a fervent advocate of
privileged trade for the [Royal African C]ompany...There is, of
More Postlethwayt:
"The Trade to Africa is the Branch which renders our *American Colonies* and
*Plantations* so adbantagious to *Great-Britain*, that Traffic only
affording our *Planters* a constant supply of *Negroe-Servants* for the
Culture of their lands in the Produce of *Sugars, Tobaccoe,
Eric Williams, Ronald Bailey, C.L.R. James, Walter Rodney, W. E. B. Du Bois,
William Darity, Jr. Lorenzo Greene, Oliver Cromwell Cox, Wilson Williams,
and others, have all documented the importance of the slave "trade" and
slavery, and the mercantalist ideology in the rise of capitalism. Key
Yes, I would further note that the chapter Louis quotes from is "The Genesis of the
Industrial Capitalist", in contrast with the immediately previous chapter on "The
Genesis of the Farming Capitalist". So, Marx says the "CHIEF momenta" of the
primitive accumulation of the INDUSTRIAL
I forwarded Ellen Wood some of this exchange and she answered me with
a few introductory sentences and some excerpts from recent writings.
Doug
[introductory comment]: "As you'll see in the extracts appended here
from Origin and the summer issue, I don't argue that colonial trade
Wood's newest book does insist that capitalism begins in agriculture, but she's
answering a different question then we are discussing. Her point is that
capitalist social relations begin in agriculture, not that agricultural
accumulation was predominant.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/20/99 11:05AM
The notion that Wood would have assumed co-editing
responsibilities with Paul and Harry, while sharing the
O'Brien-Duchesne-Max Weber world-view, is just a joke. That's what the
reference to "Skippy Wood" was meant to say.
((
not just volume 1 ch. 25 (thereabouts), but volume 3, the ch. on "Historical
Facts About Merchants Capital" (ch. XX) is extremely important. mf
-Original Message-
From: Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Monday, September 20, 1999 9:59 AM
Ricardo Duchesne wrote:
Ricardo: "Should remember that many Marxists, including Wood, do not think
the colonial trade was that important."
Ricardo, I own all of Wood's books and waited until I got home to check up
on this. Her newest "The Origin of Capitalism" does not seem to take
Charles: Do you grant that Marx himself, in the Section in _Capital_ on the
primitive accumulation, very much thought that the colonial labor and trade
were important in the origin and primitive accumulation of capitalism ?
LNP: Of course, this is Marx's view. I understand that Duchesne is
It would be extremely controversial to claim that the agricultural
revolution was the result of demand growth. Where was this demand coming
from. Surely not from those who accumulated gold?
Merchant capital has existed for a very long time. It is possible to find
records of it in ancient
At 05:50 PM 9/18/99 -0700, Max B. Sawicky wrote:
1. Is Hoffa doing much damage to the Teamsters or is it business as
usual?
I'm not in a position to give an overall assessment, but can note three things.
1. I heard from reliable sources that some of Carey's people were not only fired, but
Date sent: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 16:20:51 -0400
From: "Charles Brown" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:[PEN-L:11241] Re: Wallerstein's response to O'Brien
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Do you have any stats on the number of person hours
Steve:
I think Marx was mistaken in thinking that medieval merchants somehow had
little to do with production -- merely traded, buying cheap and selling
dear, etc. This is an empirical question, and we know a hell of a lot more
about medieval history than Marx did. In, lets say, the mid-15th
Brad De Long wrote:
Note the part about Larry Summers therein.
Deborah Sklar ... cites a blueprint called The East Asian Miracle,
written by US
Treasury
Secretary Lawrence Summers, in which he urges governments to 'insulate'
themselves from 'pluralist pressures' and to suppress trade unions.
83 matches
Mail list logo
