Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Eurocentrism once again

[Brad DeLong <delong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Jim Devine wrote:
>
> > However, he disagrees with the proposition that "not only that the
> > rise of underdevelopment is inherent in the extension of the world
> > division of labour through capitalist expansion, but also that the
> > 'development of underdevelopment' is an indispensable condition for
> > capitalist development itself." I don't see why anti-imperialists
> > _have to_ accept this proposition. If European capitalism hadn't
> > had the third-world periphery to exploit, it could have abused
> > nature more, for example. Or it could have taken advantage of its
> > own proletariat, as Marx, Brenner, Wood, _et al_ argue.
>
> There's no question that imperialism was essential to the rise of
> European capitalism. But what about its contribution to First World
> wealth in the present? No doubt greater than zero, but how much?
> Does anyone have any good ideas?
>
> Doug

It would seem to be bounded from above by the share of first-world
consumption, investment, and government purchases that are made in
countries with GDP per capita levels less than half that of the U.S.

So less than 3%.

Of course, this is not "dialectical"...


Brad DeLong