Louis' point is very interesting --- It follows Gunder Frank's (and Immanuel Wallerstein's) world systems approach --- the idea of course is that from the very beginning Capitalism thrived and existed BECAUSE it had other sections of the world to exploit (super-exploit) which actually made it easier to exploit the working class in the center by REDUCING the value of labour power ---
Implicit in this argument is actually a Rosa Luxembourg view that capitalism in the center cannot succeed if it doesnt have a weaker periphery to exploit. BUT --- notice if this is the correct way to understand the development of capitalism, then Lenin's view that imperialism is a "stage" of capitalism is wrong ---- capitalism has always been a worldwide exploitative system --- and the original exploitation of India, Latin America and other peripheral regions incorporated into the world system beginning in the 1500s was just as crucial for capitalist development as the "new imperialism" that Lenin wrote about --- (maybe more so!) But Louis, WHY did India, etc. NOT develop the British style capitalist mode of production? Because it was militarily too weak to create its own domestic version of capitalism --- unlike, for example, Japan which reacted to Admiral Perry's ships by vigorously working to adopt their version of capitalism which protected them from imperial domination -- even the "independent" countries of Latin America that escaped formal colonialism were prey to first Britain's informal empire and later domination (and often intervention) by the US. Which leads me back to my original point --- the DYNAMIC of these peripheral economies that could not resist the "old" imperialism of the early modern era --- was a different mode of production from that which developed in Britain. On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 12:13 PM Louis Proyect <l...@panix.com> wrote: > . For me, the main distinction is whether capitalism is a mode of > production or a global system that can incorporate multiple forms of > exploitation. Latin America always operated under conditions of forced > labor, ranging from slavery to peonage to indentured servitude. If they > took some other form corresponding to the British manufacturing model in V. > 1 of Capital, Europe never could have become dominant globally. The tea > produced in Asia and the coffee produced in Latin America helped keep the > wage laborer in a textile mill alert while he or she tended to the > machinery spinning cotton produced by American slaves. > _._,_._,_ > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#6144): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/6144 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/80286261/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. -=-=- Group Owner: marxmail+ow...@groups.io Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/1316126222/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
