[PEN-L:11353] Re: Re: Re: colonialism

[Carrol Cox <cbcox@xxxxxxxxx>]

Lou, you are being deliberately opaque. Barkeley's argument here is
merely a corollary of Wood's polemic against technological determinism.
You seem to assume that to admit that X was technologically possible
for P (but not performed) means that P was deficient. Bullshit. Barkeley's
question is a good one and deserves an answer in other than racist
or psychological terms. You also assume that capitalism is an expression
of human nature and thus its absence indicates some deficiency. Again,
Bullshit. (Any praise *or* dispraise of the Chinese in this context is
reducible to  racist or psychologistic -- i.e., non-historical -- terms.)
Barkeley, on the other hand, is asking for a marxist rather than moralistic
explanation of the Chinese action. (And both going and not going to
North America were *positive* actions. Perhaps you are allowing
Brad's initial statement of the issue to confuse you: if I remember
correctly he asked "Why did China *fail* to become capitalist?" But
that is a stupid question, which turns social systems into brands of
green beans on a supermarket shelf with nations as the shoppers of
neoclassical economics. No society either succeeds or fails to become
capitalist. The very terminology is ridiculous.)

Carrol

Louis Proyect wrote:

> Barkley Rosser wrote:
> >Louis,
> >    We have no disagreement here.  Did I ever
> >say that Columbus was out just exploring?  No.
>
> Of course you did. That's why you again write the following, to make the
> same kind of point which amounts to a comparison between the restless,
> missionary-zealous West and the complacent, Confucian East.
>
> >     The Chinese or Koreans or Japanese could fairly easily
> >have sent out expeditions to get furs from Northwestern
> >North America.  They did not do so.  Why not?