Anthony D'Costa:
But Korea didn't get an infusion of capital as in FDI.
The United States financed almost 70 percent of South Korea's imports
between 1953 and 1962.
Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Anthony D'Costa
Is this development by invitation a la Wallerstein? Dependent development
or that imperialism does not necessarily mean pillage as you underscored
earlier.
Right. In a few exceptional cases, third world countries benefited from an
infusion of capital because of their strategic
Lou wrote:
Anthony D'Costa
Is this development by invitation a la Wallerstein? Dependent development
or that imperialism does not necessarily mean pillage as you underscored
earlier.
Right. In a few exceptional cases, third world countries benefited from an
infusion of capital because of their
On Sat, 9 Dec 2000, Louis Proyect wrote:
Anthony D'Costa
Is this development by invitation a la Wallerstein? Dependent development
or that imperialism does not necessarily mean pillage as you underscored
earlier.
Right. In a few exceptional cases, third world countries benefited from an
Anthony D. is correct that we can learn from Korea. One factor that he
did not mention is a relatively equal distribution of income,
also widespread education, including for girls.
By the way, why did Japan encourage Korean education?
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State
About two weeks ago I was a discussant at a Korea seminar in Seattle
sponsored by the Consul Gen of ROK Seattle and the Trade Dev Alliance (a
business group). Among many interesting things about the Korean economic
reforms at this time, I specifically asked about the inequality issue. I
did
Anthony D;Costa wrote:
Korea took off because it was colonized (Japan/US).
No, it was because of its role as a garrison state of US imperialism and
because of the protectionist manufacturing policies.
Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Louis Proyect wrote:
Anthony D;Costa wrote:
Korea took off because it was colonized (Japan/US).
No, it was because of its role as a garrison state of US imperialism and
because of the protectionist manufacturing policies.
How is "garrison state" different from "colonized," and how did a
How is "garrison state" different from "colonized," and how did a
colony/garrison state get away with protectionist policies?
Doug
A garrison state receives enormous economic support because of its
military-strategic value. Taiwan is another example, as is Israel and South
Africa. Israel and
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Louis Proyect wrote:
How is "garrison state" different from "colonized," and how did a
colony/garrison state get away with protectionist policies?
Doug
A garrison state receives enormous economic support because of its
military-strategic value. Taiwan is another
At 12:55 AM 12/8/00 -0500, you wrote:
Korea took off because it was colonized (Japan/US).
Right, but imperialism can't afford to make the entire world take
off. For the majority in the world, capitalism means the development of
underdevelopment, doomed to relative deprivation for ever.
I'm
But why enclosure? Why travel abroad and steal people? Why did it
occur to people to enclose common land for the first time? Why didn't
they think of it before?
Doug
Enclosing land is utterly inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.
Spain enclosed land all through the 15th and 16th
It fascinates me that contingency leaves both you Charles, Lou
Ricardo, etc., unhappy unsatisfied, for all the differences in
opinions on many other subjects.
Yoshie
--
maybe not so surprising because if history follows a random path
(contingency), then
Spain also became colonialist and didn't "take off." Ditto Portugal.
Silver and gold ran out. Slaves + earth + water + cotton seeds or sugar
seeds lasts forever.
The Netherlands sank and Britain rose, though both were colonial
powers. Germany was only a middling imperial power but became an
Enclosure mattered the most at the _origin_ of capitalism, for the
_creation_ of the drive toward M-C-M'.
Yoshie
Except in Spain?
Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Louis Proyect wrote:
The question was whether enclosures lead to a "take off". Sounds to me like
you have some other question on your mind, but I am no mind reader.
Something internally happened in Britain. Colonialism was a necessary
but not sufficient condition for takeoff. Or am I missing
Louis Proyect wrote:
The question was whether enclosures lead to a "take off". Sounds to me like
you have some other question on your mind, but I am no mind reader.
Something internally happened in Britain. Colonialism was a necessary
but not sufficient condition for takeoff. Or am I missing
At 02:52 PM 12/7/00 -0500, you wrote:
Enclosure mattered the most at the _origin_ of capitalism, for the
_creation_ of the drive toward M-C-M'.
Yoshie
Except in Spain?
I don't know enough about the enclosures in Spain (and my Spain books are
all at home), but it's quite possible that
I would love to hear from an expert on this subject to see how valid or
invalid my speculations are.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
You should read the article by Jaime Torras in the Fall 1980 Review of the
Braudel Center. It is a reply to Brenner, who argued
Louis wrote:
You should read the article by Jaime Torras in the Fall 1980 Review of the
Braudel Center. It is a reply to Brenner, who argued in Past and Present
that Catalonia had the same class relations as England in the 15th through
17th century and therefore enjoyed a kind of prosperity.
You should also check the very latest scholarship on Spain in this period,
edited by I.A.A. Thompson and Bartolomé Yun Casalilla and titled "The
Castilian Crisis of the Seventeenth Century."
what does it say?
I covered it in my longish post on B-r a couple of weeks ago. You can
find it in
Korea took off because it was colonized (Japan/US).
xxx
Anthony P. D'Costa, Associate Professor
Comparative International Development
University of WashingtonCampus Box 358436
1900 Commerce
Korea took off because it was colonized (Japan/US).
Right, but imperialism can't afford to make the entire world take
off. For the majority in the world, capitalism means the development
of underdevelopment, doomed to relative deprivation for ever.
Yoshie
But why enclosure? Why travel abroad and steal people? Why did it
occur to people to enclose common land for the first time? Why didn't
they think of it before?
Doug
Enclosing land is utterly inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.
Spain enclosed land all through the 15th and 16th
Wojtek:
Kelley: Contrary to some opinions, Max Weber' theories pretty much in line
with Karl Marx's view of capitalism, excpet that Weber focuses on the role
of state in capitalist development, which btw latter-day-marxists also
recognize.
Yoshie: You do not understand, comrade. Weber was a
Wojtek:
But I thought this guy didn't exist in pen-l either? Wasn't he kicked
out because some people here thought he
was a racist pig who used
the word "negro."
Ricardo Duchesne wrote:
Wojtek:
But I thought this guy didn't exist in pen-l either? Wasn't he kicked
out because some people here thought he
If Wojtek was booted, I'm more confused than ever about why you haven't been.
Doug
If Wojtek was booted, I'm more confused than ever about why you haven't been.
Doug
Calm down, Doug, you have no reason to be green-eyed.
CB: I think it was use of force and violence externally that made
primitive accumulation on a global scale possible. Would have been
difficult to accumulate globally by only doing things internal to
Europe.
Enclosure + chattel slavery = primitive accumulation = the origin of
capitalism. The
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
CB: I think it was use of force and violence externally that made
primitive accumulation on a global scale possible. Would have been
difficult to accumulate globally by only doing things internal to
Europe.
Enclosure + chattel slavery = primitive accumulation = the
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
CB: I think it was use of force and violence externally that made
primitive accumulation on a global scale possible. Would have been
difficult to accumulate globally by only doing things internal to
Europe.
Enclosure + chattel slavery = primitive accumulation = the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/06/00 10:19PM
It fascinates me that contingency leaves both you Charles, Lou
Ricardo, etc., unhappy unsatisfied, for all the differences in
opinions on many other subjects.
((
CB: It only leave me unsatisfied when you state it alone rather than
as a
Doug says:
Carrol Cox wrote:
And incidentally, I fail to see any remote connection between a
proposition on the source of the destructive rationality of
capitalism and one's view, one way or the other, of the impact
of prevailing winds on history.
It's been a few years since I read the
Kelley wrote:
At 04:22 PM 12/5/00 -0600, Carrol Cox wrote:
kelley wrote:
no, i'm talking about Weber's study of the rise of capitalism. the
conditions were, largely, there for the chinese to have been the place
where a proto-capitalist economic organization took off, not all the
34 matches
Mail list logo
