[PEN-L:11608] Re: Empiricism, was Re: UK Agricultural Revolution

["James M. Blaut" <70671.2032@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

More ripostes from Jim B:

Post #11594    Carrol. "...Jim Blaut's empiricism." What is            the
message -- that I try to bring evidence into a
     discussion? Carrol makes me out an empiricist. Wojtek
     attacks me for not being empirical. You can't win.

577  Sam P. You're confusing apples and oranges and lemons
     and limes. Both internal and external causes? The
     export of capital and the "classic theory of
     imperialism" (which I accept) as explanations for
     colonialism? See my other post on confusion over the
     concept of "internal" vs. "external -- they mean
     utterly different things for 1500 than they do for
     later periods./Extra-economicv coercion is still with
     us./ The Asiatic Mode of Production is one of Marx's
     few bad ideas./There were many places outside Europe
     in the precxapitalist times where the ruling classes
     did not "squander" ssurp;lus on temples, etc./Brenner
     claims to explain "how the whole process of capitalist
     cap[ital accumulation got going in the first place"
     but he fails miserably. I'm posting on Brenner in a
     day or two. You may change your mind...

550  Sawicky. Where do you get this "capitalism itself is
     not a stage of historical progress, relative to
     feudalism." You don't get it from me. But saying it
     gives you a chance to sneer at revolutionsary efforts
     in the Third world, so I understand and forgive. And
     precisely how does anti-imperialism hinder struggles
     in the developed capitalist countries? Lou might have
     a word or two to say about that. Also Charles, Carrol,
     Matthew..

570  Sawicky again. Third world struggles are "some kind of
     funky zionism." No comment needed.

562 Carrol: "it seemed to me that Jim B & Lou as well as their opponents
were operating as though purely empiricist arguments could decide the
issue."  I take it you mean that Lou and I have no theory, no model, just
isolated empirical data. Both of us accept Marx's theory of historical
materialism but develop it so that hopefully it works for the whole world.
Marx knew very little about the non-Western world and he conceded that his
theory would have to be developed to consider historical processes outside
of Europe. Lenin took one big step in that direction. Samir Amin took
another step, generalizing the concept of feudalism to a world-wide class
mode of production  that he calls "tributary"; and we (along with Charles,
Matthew, and many others) are trying to take the next step. One aspect of
this development is the recognition that the forces that were leading to
evolution out of feudalism and toward (something like) capitalism were
going on in many parts of the world at the same they were going on in
Europe. (I say "something like capitalism" because social evolution in Old
World civizilations might not have led to the form of capitalism that
appeared in Europe, a form that was very much conditioned by Europe's
colponial accumulation.) Another aspect is to build into the theory the
recognition of how important coloniasl accumulation, colonial marketds,
ettc., were for the rise of capitalism that did, actually, take place in
Europe.