>Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>
>>It is anachronistic & culturalist to make capitalist rationality --
>>racialized into "European rationality" by Weber & Co. -- the cause
>>of capitalism.
>
>So do you buy Blaut's "prevailing winds" theory of the rise of
>European imperialism?
In a word, no. To elaborate:
***** Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 17:23:04 -0500 To: marxism at lists.panix.com From: Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1 at osu.edu> Subject: Re: A reading list for Anthony
Lou:
>Yoshie:
>>Yes, but you know I'm not convinced of the late & lamented Jim
>>Blaut's idea that it all happened because of "Europe's proximity to
>>the New World." Well, geography of the world -- as far as relative
>>positions of what came to be known as Europe & the New World
>>respectively are concerned -- changed little from the beginning of
>>recorded history to now, so why in 1492, and not much earlier or much
>>later?
>
>I have trouble understanding your question, but let me try to explain based
>on what I assume you are asking.
That is exactly the problem & has been the problem in "debates" here and elsewhere. George Snedeker mentioned:
>now, this discussion is getting interesting. the emergence of capitalism is
>not just a question of facts, but also their interpretation.
I concur. I'm not at all asking for or offering more empirical facts; at the level of facts, I believe we have no disagreement.
I'm saying that Marxist explanation _shouldn't be circular_. The emergence of chattel slavery (as opposed to pre-modern slavery) cannot be explained by descriptions of chattel slavery; nor can the emergence of modern colonialism (as opposed to old tributary empires) be explained by descriptions of modern colonialism.
In explanation, the empirical phenomenon A has to be explained not by a re-description of A but by an analysis of the generative mechanism(s) of A, meaning _something other than A_. To _describe_ A and to _explain the cause(s) of_ A are not the same.
Substitute chattel slavery for A. Substitute modern colonialism for A.
To describe chattel slavery is not the same as to explain the cause of chattel slavery. To describe modern colonialism is not the same as to explain the cause of modern colonialism.
Yoshie *****
I thought that I had explained the nature of my disagreement with Jim, Lou, etc. on this subject on PEN-l & that you were already aware of it, though.
>Or did something happen internally in Europe that made primitive
>accumulation on a global scale possible?
Enclosure -- a contingent outcome of class struggles -- lies at the origin of capitalism. Do not speak of "Europe," however. Compare England (and to the lesser extent the Netherlands) with Portugal, Spain, France, Germany, Poland, etc., as Robert Brenner does.
Yoshie