Re: [Marxism] The transition to capitalism: is it in our genes?

[Einde O'Callaghan <einde@xxxxxx>]

Carrol Cox schrieb:
> 
> Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> 
>>
>>On the basis od my knowledge of evolutionary theory, admittedly that of
>>a layman, I can see no evolutionary mechanism which can be used to
>>explain the rise of capitalism in England as distinct from France, which
>>was at roughly the same level of economic development after, say, the
>>Black Death - perhaps even more advanced since it was in broad terms a
>>richer society.
> 
> 
> Mark Lause gave the final word on this as relates to the article. And
> you are right that defense of the article is nothing but ignorant crap.
> But a footnote of some importance.
> 
> The statement that Country A is equal to, ahead of, or behind country B
> tells us _nothing_ about which if either country was capitalist. The
> implicit assumption that capitalism = development, development =
> capitalism, is false, or at least has to be demonstrated in each
> specific case.
> 
> Equally false is the myth that sometimes corrupts this discussion, that
> priority = superiority, which is the height of ignorance.
> 
I don't disagree with you there - however I would point out that in 1349 
neither France nor England were capitalist.

I merely wanted to suggest that if you're looking for an explanation for 
capitalist "take-off" then you have to look outside the natural 
conditions - if anything they were more favourable in France - or the 
genetic structure of the population - a similar mix of pre-Celtic, 
Celtic, Roman, Germanic and Viking - to the economic, social and 
political determinants, e.g. the class struggles of the period and their 
different outcomes.

Einde O'Callaghan

________________________________________________
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