Origins of the Modern World Capitalist Economy

A historical inaccuracy I believe the nation states came about with the treay of westphlaia 1648 over a hundred years before the American and French revolutions. So nations/states existed under an achiac feudal regime structure. The French Revolution with its idealist undertones brought into nations the grand ideals. Although you made implcit refreneces to the Enlighhtenment It think it wasa driving force which drove reforms at all levels intellectually, academically, technologically etc... through its advocacy or progress and the `search for the `good life.`` Industrialisation became driving factor for new markets, colonialism and as some have claimed - led to the Holocasut.

Test # two

This is a test. Pls ignore

It is also imperative to see the role of paper money which govts print by fiat. So the value of money is not based on value of goods but on the power that a govt/economy weilds.

Its origins are also very intresting. It was first given out by a german bank which was facing a payments crisis. It is recorded that the people who advised the bank to give out promisorry notes in form of currency explained how this bank could get out of thier difficulties by giving something of only percived value. Later on the currency note was adpoted by germany for the same intrest ie to suppourt a failing economy and power of the govt. When Britain took up currency notes it was clearly a strategic choice ie for the country to increase it wealth (at the expense of others).

You can read Dr liu`s and other peoples articles on the exchange rate mechanism at www.atimes.com also you could read why is it that Mahatir Moahmmed of Malaysia is rallying around some intrested countries towards the gold coin which will have tradeable value. One of Liu`s aritcle aslo predicts/advises that china should in near future should unhook its currency from Dollar and its accompaning benifits.

You could also browse the web at the rude response of IMF to malaysias suggestion that some of the mulsims countries should start trading in with the gold dinar as the currency of choice. To understand the reaction of IMF and its harsh actions of withdrawing IMF loans and threatning suspension of existing loans as well as threats to other muslim countries on this issue we should study how the west benifits with the exchange rate mechanism at the expense of poor as well as technologicaliy backward but rich countries.

A search for economic history as well as a search for the continuing discussion on the role of colonial rule as far as economy is concerned. We have to read David Lande`s latest history (an apologia for the west) and its response by both sides of the debate. The group of economic historians called ``california school`` is very intresting.

There`s no doubt that colonialism & neo-colonialism are systems of making money from other societies. But at look at those backward societies which were kept backwards with feudalism. Those societies were not backward because they lacked in resources. The feudals and dictators controlled all their resources and the people work only for themselves. In these circumstances foreign powers take advantage and introduce their system. People of backward countries are benefited with the system. Even the feudals get more benefits with the foreign system. Moreover, the foreign system triggers the thinking process in the backward people. They too start thinking in terms of democracy, which in the feudal system is discouraged by feudals with the name of God`s constitutions.

As usual, very thorough. I understand your reservations in attempting to cap the growth of the modern capitalist economy into three categories. It is a hard task, as even I can make out that there were many, many other forces at work to create this monster. However, at the broadest level, I think the generalizations are correct for the size of the paper written.

I would, however, add a few comments: You seem to place the entire burden of the creation of the modern nation on the hands of the French (with the help of English philosopher like Locke etc.). But you have not examined the political experiment carried out a decade earlier in the United States. There, brilliant men like Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and Monroe were at work (again with the help of English – and this case, French also – thinkers). What they managed to create was a concept of equality amongst men (note the use of the word “create” – the Fundamental Rights with which we are so aware are of relatively recent innovation), centered on the idea of property ownership. They dreamt of men, all bound together under a social contract, handing over their liberty and rights to the State in consideration for protection. I may add that the same is also true of the outcome of the Republic after the French Revolution. But there is little here (or in France, at the time), to bring engender thought of a “Nation”.

For the first 75 odd years of its existence, the US was nothing more than a loose confederation of states, tied together by Washington DC. It didn’t even have a standing army. It was only after the Civil War – when Lincoln sought to protect the integrity of the Union and not, as is commonly acknowledged, to free the slaves – that the US became centralized, and formed into an entity which shares characteristics of what we refer to as a Nation or Nation State.

The point I am trying to make is 1) You forgot about the social experiment (and, I may add, a very successful one at that) carried out by the US. Because of this, you forgot 2) to note that the birth of the modern Nation State was more the product of a centralized government than that of political philosphy (and not, as you seem to indicate, of social revolution alone).

At this point, one may also add another dimension to your argument, which brings us up to approximately the 1960s: The internet and international banking. Both are related. With the current ease with which people can stash money in far away places, the magnet that kept people bound to their homes, their Nation, if you will, is being eroded. Part of this ease is due to the intervention of the internet into global society. With just under one third of the world’s wealth stored in offshore accounts (I forget the exact figures, but they are in trillions), the idea of having to hold onto a piece of land as yours is fast becoming out of fashion.

What I’m trying to say here, Taiumur (and I do so with the greatest of admiration and respect), is that your paper is good. But is it merely restating that which has been spoken about ad-nauseum before (though, I concede, eloquently)? Shouldn’t it be looking to the future; By grasping onto the direction the global economy seems to be taking, if you begin criticism of its flight trajectory at this point, you may well be able to determine its path.

Rafay

``On the basis of brutality, commercial agriculture, plantations, and cash-cropping (Wolf 1982: 315) were institutionalised in the Third World``

I feel that although you tackled the history of the World Economy completely and very acurately. You did not write about the post colonialist era of the world economics. I feel that a person with your knowledge should delve into that and write a concluding part to this article.

But the Liberal Economics of the new world order, is still based on the above statement, the third world is still an institutionalised set of economies, controlled by the effective IMF debt structure and thier politics controlled by washington. So i beleive the white man has now perfected his system of colonialism by proxy. however in cases like Iraq where the proxies have gone againsts the master`s wishes have to be annihalated by violent means. To the Warmongers in Washington and London, the third world is still a colony filled with half breeds, that can be exploited at will and are exploited at will. The regions are kept in check by strategic placing of military juntas and shiekdoms. the social conditions are always built so as to avoid any form of positive development. Sanctions are symptoms of the gun boat policy of the overt colonialist era whereby nations were boycotted and no supplies were allowed to reach them if they did not concede to the demands of the west.
You will notice that the coalitions is comrpised of British, Spanish and Portugese(Old Colonialist) and US (The dominant colonialist of the new world order). Their attitudes can be understood by their joint abomination of France`s stance, I mean French were colonialist themselves. So Blair and Bush could not believe that France would not join the coalition. I mean this is evident by the insult only france got after china, russia and france threatened a veto of the second resolution. But i do feel that the colonialist have made a mistake by going into iraq, a lot of feathers have been rustled and the birds that were sleeping are now waking up to the smell of this new occupation. As sartre said, the drums of freedom are echoing at a distance. where there is a occupation, the freedom movements are born as well. Gentlemen we are witnesses to history, lets hope and pray we can be part of it.

Regards

Syed Wajahat Ali

Too large a topic to be tackled in one paper but a good effort.

Ras

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts