File spoon-archives/marxism-international.archive/marxism-international_1998/marxism-international.9802, message 40


From: Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky <nestor-AT-sisurb.filo.uba.ar>
Date: 	Wed, 4 Feb 1998 21:39:05 +0000
Subject: Re: M-I: AG Frank etc. again


El  4 Feb 98 a las 17:49, Rosser Jr, John Barkley nos dice(n):

> Jim B.,

>In short, 1492 represented a crucial acceleration, but 
> just as China was not stagnant prior to 1492 (or after),
> neither was Europe.


When elephants argue, grass suffers.  I may be no more than grass, 
but I would like John Barkley Rosser Jr to explain us where, in Prof. 
Blaut's postings, has he seen any hint that Europe was (more) 
stagnant than China prior to 1492.  I think his position is that the 
whole of the human species evolved more or less at the same pace 
everywhere, and that it was just a matter of geographical good luck for the 
Europeans that they were successful in hitting the Caribbean, looting 
American riches, enslaving millions of Africans there, etc., etc.

After that stroke of luck (and luck has its place in history, since 
history is not made of impersonal structures at work) Europe could 
accelerate its growth at up to then unimagined rates.

If this rendering of Prof. Blaut's ideas is correct, then it is at 
least puzzling to see J.B.Rossler assume that he is posing a 
"stagnant Europe" thesis.  Why should one suppose that equating 
Europe with other parts of the world prior to 1492 means that Europe 
was more stagnant than those parts?

Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky
nestor-AT-sisurb.filo.uba.ar


     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005