Dear Rog,
In your 29/10 13:23 -0500 posting you don't seem to get the main
point I tried to make in my 21/10 11:50 +0100 posting:
"Because of the growing division of labor, mainly intranational,
but international as well, no nation, defining
itself as a 'society', can tell less privileged 'societies': <we
are wealthy because of our 'free and competitive environment' and
you are not because you are 'centrally commanded, non fragmented,
non competitive'>. Globalization has made them both part of the
same society and the different 'environments' in different parts
of that society have come into being simultaneously and because
of mutual influence."
No wonder that you write a couple of times later in your posting
that you can't follow me any more.
I tried to get that point across with an example that is (for an
American) less controversial than the original subject: the
origins of Dutch wealth rather than American wealth. You started
to misunderstand me with your interpretation of:
"WIM:
International trade in staples not only made Dutch cities less
dependent on their own countryside (underpinning the exploitation
of Dutch peasants). It also enabled for instance the nobility of
Eastern Europe to make money from renewal of serfdom, coerced
cash-crop labor using the legal system of previous feudalism."
Your interpretation:
"ROG:
I guess you are saying that the VOC power from international
trade allowed the Dutch nobles to be less dependent on the
peasants and empowered them to exploit their people. Similar --
even greater -- exploitation occurred in Eastern Europe. My
thesis is that this is part of the reason that success shifted
across the English Channel. Exploitation holds cultures back.
The greater the exploitation, the less progressive the society
(to oversimplify)."
That was not what I was saying. (Minor point: the VOC was neither
involved in trade in staples nor in trade within Europe, but only
in trade in luxuries with the East Indies.) Dutch nobles in the
sixteenth century were no separate power group any more (after
the so-called "Hoekse en Kabeljauwse twisten" of former
centuries, strife between nobles with a power base in the
countryside and nobles connecting their interests with those of
the growing cities). Dutch cities themselves exploited both their
own countryside and (by means of the Eastern European nobility)
Eastern European serfs. Cheap grain from the Baltic (and other
staples) made them less dependent on staple products from their
own countryside: they could afford to offer lower prices to Dutch
peasants. Grain from the Baltic was cheap because the nobility
coerced more cash crops from their serfs. East European nobles
could choose this way of enriching themselves, (only) because
they had an outlet for these cash crops via Dutch shipping.
Fortunately for Dutch peasants Dutch cities became so rich from
international trade (and manufacturing goods for sale abroad),
that they could afford to buy more luxurious (and more
perishable) foods from their own countryside. So Dutch peasants
specialized in diary products and vegetables for sale in their
cities and in this way got part of the spoil from international
exploitation.
Your "point is that the exploitation of peasants wasn't the cause
of social progress as much as it was a limiting factor." and "The
strong benefit themselves short term at the expense of the weak
and at the expense of the synergy within the society that
inevitably leads to value creation."
I don't agree. Exploitation, siphoning off part of the wealth
created by others, (both intranational and international) is in
my view essential for creation of wealth above a certain level.
Without the concentration of wealth in the hands of Amsterdam
merchants, they could not have invested so heavily in the
development of better ships and in the dykes, polders, canals
etc. that still underpin my wealth. Without the concentration of
wealth in the hands of English manufacturers and of those English
nobles that connected their interests with those of the
manufacturers, they could not have started the Industrial
Revolution. And ... most exploitation is fully legal: "you
basically have to offer your self to the service of others. You
have to make something or do
something that others value and will pay you for. Free enterprise
requires people voluntarily cooperating with each other in ways
that benefit both parties." as you wrote 29/9 19:00 -0400. It's
just that both parties usually don't benefit to the same extent
(because they are not equally dependent on the deal) and that
they don't pass on the benefits to their own suppliers, workers
(serfs) and customers if they have enough monopoly (or oligopoly)
power. The most successful parties are usually supported by a
strong state granting monopolies and hampering competitors with
all kinds of (fully legal) devices ranging from tariffs to
piracy. (The Dutch and English heroes of the 16th and 17th
centuries were pirates hijacking Spanish ships.)
Because of the importance of international division of labor (and
the implied international exploitation) since around 1500 for
wealth creation, countries are simply not the relevant entities
for comparing relative success and failure. The relevant entities
are world systems containing (since around 1500) several
countries as well as colonies, failed nations and other
politically or economically dependent territories. A peripheral
region can only successfully apply recipes from core states
(nowadays often given out by IMF and Worldbank) and become
semiperipheral by outcompeting other semiperipheral regions,
that become peripheral in the process. The success of 'free
enterprise global economics' (not the system of ideas, but the
practice) is not measured by the wealth of the USA or the
Netherlands, but by the wealth of almost the whole world. (And
yes, I agree it is more successful than its alternative, a world
empire. And no, communist states are no alternative to 'free
enterprise global economics', they just -being semiperipheral-
try another route -inside the same world economy- to concentrate
enough wealth in a few hands to be able to industrialize.)
Before we get this point (countries are not the relevant
entities) straight, I don't think discussing the other details in
your posting is very fruitful.
With friendly greetings (and thanks for your continued efforts to
keep an open mind),
Wim
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:37 BST