[PEN-L:11404] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: colonialism

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Engels' position is that the laws of motion of nature and society assert themselves amidst a welter of accidents, in the dialectic of chance and necessity ( See _Anti-Duhring_ and _The Dialectics of Nature_).

As far as applying probability logic to the revolution in the mode of production in Europe that we call the origin or genesis of capitalism, we might look at the global context rather than only internally to Europe. In other words, look  at "internal"Europe in relation to its total or whole world context-  the part and the whole.

 Most of the recent previous revolutions in the modes of production in the world occurred outside of Europe; and the leading area in the globe for "feudalism" had been China (as discussed on this thread( and even the Moslem, and African kingdoms before that. Anyway the probability logic developed by Elman Service in _Evolution and Culture_ ( it may have been based some of Trotsky's and Lenin's  reasoning as to Russia as the weakest link in the chain of Europe being the site of socialist revolution) was the law of evolutionary potential such that the cultural area that was least developed or advanced in a given mode has the MOST potential to make the leap or have the revolution to the next mode. Thus, Europe, by this theory, had the most revolutionary (evolutionary) potential in the period in question.
The common sense logic  being the most backward makes one the most dissatisfied with the status quo and more receptive to change.

Thus, the Europeans were due, in terms of probabilities looking at the larger system. So, in a way , I am disagreeing with Barkley that we look only internally to Europe and saying that we must look at Europe in the context of world history (look at the part and whole) . But I am agreeing with Barkley that it was not a random accident, but rather that the odds were that this leap would occur in Europe because of it was due for its "turn" so to speak.

This logic ,by the way, explains why socialist revolution is occurring first more outside of Europe (Asia) and the West (Russia and Eastern Europe). Europe has been the most advanced in the capitalist mode, but it has the least revolutionary potential for the leap to the next mode, socialism.

Charles Brown

>>> Carrol Cox <cbcox@xxxxxxxxx> 09/20/99 06:49PM >>>


"J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote:

>  If they were so, it was
> because of something going on inside of Europe, not some
> random accident.

Barkley, Yoshie has posted lately (perhaps on lbo) in reference to
the role of contingency in human history (echoing Gould's arguments
on the role of contingency in biological evolution). Do you reject
out of hand the possibility of random accident? The possibility does
not of course mean that in any given case it was a matter of
contingency.

Carrol