[PEN-L:11408] Re: Re: Response to Darity

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> "Rod Hay" <rodhay@xxxxxxxxxxx> 09/21/99 09:42AM >>>
Jim and Mathew: I am certainly not saying that Europeans were "better,
brighter, bolder" than any one else. There is no doubt that the Chinese (and
many others as well) had a very highly developed societies. But something
sparked the Europeans to act in ways that these other societies did not. So
unless you are putting up an argument that the Europeans were greedier, more
vicious, etc. than the others, it has to be determined why did the Europeans
reacted differently.

(((((((((((

Charles: Marx seems to imply  that "greedierness" and greater viciousness were necessary factors in the difference of Europeans such that they took the plunge to capitalism. Although Marx is not comparing the Europeans with the non-Europeans, his MATERIALIST  or objective discussion of the "genesis of the capitalist farmer and the industrial capitalist" is full of references to the looting , conquest, brute force, barbarities, murder,meaness, treachery, bribery of the European project. This is not some lapse by the founder of historical materialism into idealism. The ideologies or belief systems of a people are part of their material existence (See _Marxism and Literature_ by Raymond Williams; and _Illusion and Reality_ (Introduction)  by Christopher Caudwell). Marx is opposed to INDIVIDUAL psychological explanations. His materialist approach does not exclude the fact that different cultures have different SOCIO-historically developed idea systems or ideologies.  Marx is not s!
aying that Europeans of this period were greedier or more vicious because of biological inheritance, but because of their cultural ideology. This was not the only difference, but it was a necessary element (some of the other differences have been discussed on this thread) .

 The invention of the institution of wage-labor, was as important as the invention of the institution of white supremacy. And wage-labor was established by viciousness toward other Europeans (fellow Britains even) in removing the peasants from their land ( Marx describes this at length in the primitive accumulation section.). Weber is not incorrect for looking at socio-historical cultural differences of Europeans. He just got the content wrong. The differnence was not more sweetness and light in Europe, but more greediness, viciousness and feeling that Europe had been the backwater of Asia for long enough. It was a sort of socio-cultural inferioirty complex expressed as a superiority complex.

(Jim Blaut: Does it make any sense to think of Europe as a different continent from the rest of Asia in a normal land mass division process in geography ? Europe is Northeast Asia, and historically it had been a relative backwater)

 However, as capitalism developed , it cannot be denied that the Europeans did develop some of the smarter ideas of this era. The Europeans did initiate capitalism because they were initially smarter, "brighter" (notice the association of smart with brighter as opposed to darker).  But they have become the center of much of science and intellectual achievement since they took the leap that others did not. The European domination of the world today is dependent on viciousness and greediness but not only on that. It is dependent upon superior intellectual achievements in a number of different areas. This is not genetically , but socio-historically derived.

(((((((((

Since Mat brought up the political issue, I will respond. I want a politics
that emphasises the universal nature of human society--the common elements.
"Identity politics", "anti-imperialism" etc., finds enemies where there are
none. All whites are the enemy, all Americans are the enemy. All men are the
enemy, etc., All the time reinforcing the division that this society puts
between people. We have supposed leftists supporting tin pot third world
dictators, because they in some stretch of the imagination are
"anti-imperialist" The enemy is capitalism. Capitalism developed in Europe,
(for whatever reason). It now encompasses the globe. It is the common enemy
of us all. We are all in this together and will have to find a common way
out. It helps not at all to pine for some romantic vision of how things were
before the 16th century. There is no going back.

(((((((((((

Charles: This is true. But the enemy is actually captialism/patriarchy/racist colonialism. And that is not a thing, but a social institution with people occupying roles in the system , roles that act to retain it. There is a tiny minority of people who are incorrigible pillars of the institution. However, most white men , men of all colors, white women , petit bourgeoisie do not have ultimate objective interests consonant with capitalism , although many of them don't know this or are ambivalent about it. Their failure to know this is the barrier to all around liberation and revolution.


Charles Brown





Jim Blaut wrote:
In other words, those who question the belief that Europeans were better,
brighter, and bolder than everyone else before 1500 are the real "true
believers."

Rod Hay
rodhay@xxxxxxxxxxx
The History of Economic Thought Archives
http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html
Batoche Books
http://members.tripod.com/rodhay/batochebooks.html
http://www.abebooks.com/home/BATOCHEBOOKS/




______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com