![](https://assets.cambridge.org/97805214/09223/cover/9780521409223.jpg)
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- I Periodization and historiography: The United States considered as a developing country
- II Studying American political development in the Progressive Era, 1890S–1916
- III Dollar Diplomacy according to Dollar Diplomats: American development and world development
- IV Woodrow Wilson and the developmental imperatives of modern U.S. liberalism
- V Some political and cultural consequences of the disaccumulation of capital: Origins of postindustrial development in the 1920s
- VI Disaffected with development: Henry Adams and the 1960s “New Left”
- VII The corporate reconstruction of American capitalism: A note on the capitalism–socialism mix in U.S. and world development
- Index
VII - The corporate reconstruction of American capitalism: A note on the capitalism–socialism mix in U.S. and world development
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 February 2010
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- I Periodization and historiography: The United States considered as a developing country
- II Studying American political development in the Progressive Era, 1890S–1916
- III Dollar Diplomacy according to Dollar Diplomats: American development and world development
- IV Woodrow Wilson and the developmental imperatives of modern U.S. liberalism
- V Some political and cultural consequences of the disaccumulation of capital: Origins of postindustrial development in the 1920s
- VI Disaffected with development: Henry Adams and the 1960s “New Left”
- VII The corporate reconstruction of American capitalism: A note on the capitalism–socialism mix in U.S. and world development
- Index
Summary
The triumph of capitalism and the failure of socialism is a commonplace theme today in both scholarly and publicist circles. In particular, it seems to be taken as irrefutable in widening spheres of the highest intelligence, including many of those on the political left, and in all parts of the world, that in modern – and more especially “postmodern” – circumstances, capitalism most proficiently induces, and socialism most dolefully obstructs, development.
The question of development, however, including its conditions and prospects, is as relevant, urgent, and problematic for societies like the United States, Britain, West Germany, France, Italy, Canada, and Japan, as it is for societies like the Soviet Union, Poland, Hungary, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia, as it is for societies like China, the Philippines, Argentina, Cuba, Chile, Pakistan, Egypt, Nigeria, and Iran, as it is for societies like Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, Bolivia, Peru, and Nicaragua, as it is for societies like Mexico, India, Brazil, South Korea, Taiwan, and South Africa. In other words, development is not a problem simply for “Less Developed Countries” (LDCs), or for Communist-ruled countries, or for clerical-ruled countries, but for all countries of every degree and kind of development.
As this implies, societies of various types, and most of those in the world today, currently embrace, in principle or in effect, a commitment to or an affirmation of, something we call development.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The United States as a Developing CountryStudies in U.S. History in the Progressive Era and the 1920s, pp. 209 - 218Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 1992