[Marxism] Pomeranz

["Charles Brown" <cbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Louis Proyect
Charles, you are idealizing China.

^^^^
CB: No, I'm just sticking with the facts that Europe conquered the globe and
China didn't. Those are the facts that have to be explained, and the
explanation has to include some empirical difference between the two.

The fact that we might consider it morally better not to conquest doesn't
mean that I am raising the moral or "idealizing" issue first. First, I'm
looking at the material _fact_ that Europe conquered and China didn't.

^^^^


The notion that it consciously chose not to build an empire like Great
Britain's can be attributed to a different set of values seems implausible.

^^^^^
CB: I'd say it seems obvious. What other reason would there be a difference.
I don't know about your formulation "consciously chose not to build an
empire".  They had a long tradition of not building empires. It's not like
they thought "lets build an empire, and then consciously said, oh no lets
not build an empire, so we will be judged moral in the future." They just
followed their tradition that didn't happen to include empire building. Same
with the Europeans. They just followed their tradtion , which did happen to
include more empire building. It's that simple. Not cosmic. The simple
difference of historical traditions. At this stage of analysis , we really
don't have to make a moral judgment. We observe the moral systems of the two
societies _objectively_ . Objectively, Europe had a conquering and slave
tradition and China didn't. China had more of an "absorbing" tradition.  We
might be observing a modern  operation of that tradition today

^^^^^^


Although China (and India) were not geographically dispersed empires in the
sense of Victorian England, they came into being as a result of aggressive
expansion by various dynasties, especially the Indian Moghuls. The history
of East Asia is replete with lesser nationalities fighting off incursions,
including Vietnam which was
ruled for 8 centuries by China.

^^^^^

CB: Good point. Difference might be _local_ vs. unlimited conquest.

Nonetheless, the _principle_ is that the Europeans did not conquer and
enslave because of all the stuff going on in England, France and Spain with
respect to the new forms of exploitation in the 13 and 1400's. The enclosure
system didn't _cause_ the British to start capturing Africans and making
them do slave labor. The notions of conquest and slavery didn't originate
and pop into Dutch, British, Portugeuse minds first in 1300. They had
idealized stories and legends about the Greeks and Romans doing it. They
consciously and proudly considered themselves as descendants of the Greek
and Roman traditions ( not Ghenghis Khan,though they knew about him.
Somebody pointed out that Chaucer wrote favorably about Khan).




________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism