Re: European moral inferiority

["Devine, James" <jdevine@xxxxxxx>]

My second paragraph should have read:
>I think it's wrong to assume that Europeans "chose" capitalism (as
> the above implies). History has a logic that is beyond the volition
> of individuals and cultures; capitalism has an inner logic that
> meant that it was a system that most class [not: "non-class] systems could have
> spawned.

Jim Devine, e-mail: jdevine@xxxxxxx
web: http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine/ 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: PEN-L list [mailto:PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Devine, James
> Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 9:46 AM
> To: PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PEN-L] European moral inferiority
> 
> CB: >Well, no. A culture that goes around destroying and conquering
> other cultures and peoples is morally inferior to those other
> cultures.<
> 
> I haven't noticed many cultures refraining from destroying and
> conquering cultures -- unless they happen to be small and weak and
> unable to do so. Primitive-communist societies do not so, but they
> lack the states needed to conquer & destroy.
> 
> >Surely, you are not saying that all "ethnic" groups have the same
> responsibility for capitalism. That's the initial point. Which
> "ethnic" group started capitalism, and why did that group start it
> and not other groups ? The answer is that the Western European
> "ethnic" group started capitalism.   If capitalism is on the hook,
> then Western Europeans are on the hook ( and capitalism _is_ on the
> hook).<
> 
> I think it's wrong to assume that Europeans "chose" capitalism (as
> the above implies). History has a logic that is beyond the volition
> of individuals and cultures; capitalism has an inner logic that
> meant that it was a system that most non-class systems could have
> spawned.
> 
> Further, it wasn't "Europeans" who started capitalism: it was the
> post-feudal upper classes in England. Third, if those folks hadn't
> done it, other cultures would have done so: according to some anti-
> Eurocentric views, the Chinese had capitalism long before China
> encountered European capitalism. If Europe had stumbled, in other
> words, China would have taken up the task of "perfecting" capitalism
> and spreading it all around the world independently.
> 
> >I guess I should add there is no such thing as "capitalism" without
> the global conquest. Capitalism is inherently imperialistic.<
> 
> I'd agree. However, pre-capitalist class-based modes of production
> also involved efforts at world conquest. It's only the development
> of communication, transportation, and weapons technologies that
> allowed a more successful effort by the Euros.
> 
> >We know Europeans have conquered the globe like no other group in
> history. It's not in their genes. It's got to be because of their
> culture and history.<
> 
> This simply repeats what was said before.
> 
> >Put it this way. Most of the literature debates why the Western
> Europeans started capitalism, and other cultures didn't.  What is
> agreed to among most discussants in the literature is that
> capitalism _did_ start in Western Europe.  Most discussions assume
> some type of "superiority" in this capitalism because of material
> abundance it has brought. It is technologically superior, but
> _morality_ has to do with how people are treated, not the level of
> technological development.<
> 
> I disagree with the literature. The Europeans invented capitalism
> simply as a matter of luck. It's a mistake to simply turn a existing
> (obnoxious) literature upside-down.
> 
> >Capitalism has screwed over the most people in history. This means
> that the Western Europeans' culture, the bearer of capitalism, is
> pegged as morally inferior rather than superior to other cultures.<
> 
> This misses another point. European culture isn't an "independent
> variable" in history. In fact, European culture as we know it is to
> large extent a _product_ of 300 to 500 years of capitalism. It's not
> just that people make history. History makes people.
> 
> JD