From: "Rosser Jr, John Barkley" <rosserjb-AT-jmu.edu> Subject: Re: M-I: AG Frank etc. again Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 18:12:42 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) Jim B., Hmmm, let me see if I can pinpoint real differences here, which are fewer than might seem to some observers of this discussion (e.g. Nestor). 1) The discussion of Vikings has become a sideshow but was originally brought up by me to show that "democracy" is a sideshow to this question. The Vikings were not the ultimate source of economic progress or capitalism in Europe or the world, but peripheral actors in same largely, even though they may have been the immediate founders of continuously existing democracy in Europe. This was really brought up to show the irrelevance of the "despotism" part of the "oriental despotism" argument, clearly an extremely Eurocentric and "orientalist" phrase/formulation/argument, linked closely if not exactly with the "Asiatic mode of production" argument. Now, I happen to agree with Mark Jones that what Wittfogel was really about was a political attack on Stalin. And, although I think Stalin was a despot, blaming this on OD or AMP was ridiculous. Indeed, Peter the Great was a "westernizer" and technological progressive, but was also highly despotic and instituted a major increase of oppression of serfs in Russia. That people think there is a link between democracy and capitalism probably has more to do with the emergence of its industrial phase in Britain. 2) My remark about the majority of population in Flanders being urban only holds under broad definitions of urban. Certainly China had bigger cities than did Europe at that time. But the overwhelming proportion of population in China was urban and remained as much as 85% so as recently as a couple of decades ago. There was without question a major increase in urbanization in the Flanders-North Italy corridor from 1000 to 1300, and this is not a myth due to alleged "Eurocentrists". BTW that first strike in Douai was in 1245, not 1282. 3) I am in deep water a bit as I have not read Jim's book, so I am only responding to what he says here. It has seemed at times that he is arguing that China was growing more than Europe until 1492 and at other times that they were growing equally until 1492. We do not disagree that there was a qualitative change in 1492 and that Europe's raiding in the Western Hemisphere and initiating direct trade with East Asia aided its acceleration of growth (or maybe Jim disagrees with the second point). Arguments that there were few innovations in Europe prior to 1492 seem difficult to sustain, the printing press being just one of many examples. 4) Much of this gets back to that original question of the "world economy": when was there one? My position is that of Braudel: Prior to 1492 there were distinct "world-economies" that nevertheless had some linkages between each other. There was one in Europe, one in the Middle East, one in South Asia, one in East Asia, and others in other parts of the world as well. Certainly there were strong linkages between some of these. But the Europe-East Asia link was very weak and mostly indirect prior to 1492. Technical innovations flowed from China to Europe, but did so often very slowly, via intermediaries, without direct links, despite occasional figures such as Marco Polo who made the whole journey. There was trade between Rome and Han China, but it was not direct. There were demographic links occasionally as events in Central Asia would lead to migrations affecting both China and Europe, a key to Gunder Frank's argument. Bottom line: I don't see there being a single "world economy" until the links were direct. That came with 1492 and 1498. Prior to that it was mostly indirect linkages. Indeed, Gunder Frank argues that at least in Eurasia there was a single world economy thousands of years ago. Maybe, but I think that is what one has to go to if one accepts indirect linkages as constituting unified systems, seeing "holistic unities where there are none". Barkley Rosser On Wed, 4 Feb 1998 22:34:21 -0500 james m blaut <70671.2032-AT-CompuServe.COM> wrote: > Barkley: > > You: Not sure what you consider to be so "romantic" about > this business with the Vikings. Everything that I have > said about their role in developing parliaments is widely > accepted historical fact. Go check it out in pretty much > any source. > > Me: I don't have time to look up those sources. Anyway, your Viking theory > fits perfectly in the old "Germanic tribes" theory -- supposedly the > fountainhead of European democracy, progressiveness, etc. > > You: Well, I have agreed with you that 1492 was crucial, > but to argue (and I confess to not having read your book) > that there was no acceleration of European economic growth > or technological change prior to 1492 is pretty hard to > maintain. > > Me: I don't say that. I argue that medieval progressin Europe was on a par > with that in other parts of the hemisphere. > > You: Braudel and quite a few others see an > initial takeoff around 1000 following the end of the Viking > raids. There was a further acceleration after 1200 that > coincided with the raiding by Western Europeans > > Me: Screw Braudel and all the other Eurocentric historians who think that > Europe had some quality for progress not possessed by others in the same > period. > > You: I note that > during the 1200s we saw in North Italy and Flanders for the > first time probably the first places in world history where > a majority of population was in some sense "urban". > > Me: Not so: urbanization was much more advanced in Asia than in Europe in > that period. This is not even controversial. > > You: Nascent capitalism was already going by the 13th > century in Western Europe > > Me: and elsewhere > > Jim > > > --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley rosserjb-AT-jmu.edu --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005