>There's a difference between a _definition_ of capitalism and a universal >description of how capitalism develops or a universal (stagist) >prescription. (If Marx thought that it was a prescription, he was wrong.) I >would guess Marx defined capitalism with the book CAPITAL, but he didn't >provide us with either of the latter. I would guess that's what he said to >the ed. board. Louis, do you have the direct quote somewhere? I just looked at Marx's letter to the populists and what it says--to be more exact--is that the path followed in England is not meant as a general prescription: "He [Marx's critic] absolutely insists on transforming my historical sketch of the genesis of capitalism in Western Europe into a historical-philosophical theory of the general course fatally imposed on all peoples, whatever the historical circumstances in which they find themselves placed, in order to arrive ultimately at this economic formation which assures the greatest expansion of the productive forces of social labour, as well as the most complete development of man. But I beg his pardon. That is to do me both too much honour and too much discredit." >were blocked when the Spaniards took over. The capitalism that developed in >Bolivia was uneven (helping the metropole more than the periphery in terms >of developing the "wealth of nations" and tranforming social relations of >production more in the core than in the periphery) and ended up being >combined (or "articulated") with noncapitalist modes of production. But the >capitalism that came to Bolivia started in Europe, so the home-base of the >origins of world-wide capitalism seems worth studying. Yes, I am for studying the transition to capitalism in England. But what I object to is Brenner's objection to the statement that "capitalist development cannot take place in the core unless underdevelopment is developed in the periphery." I understand his decision to open up a polemic against Wallerstein, but in the process he seems to have lost track of the central fact of imperialism. Brenner's return to Marxist "orthodoxy" seems to have lost track of Leninist "orthodoxy" in the process. I will have much more to say about this when I have assembled my data. Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
