>Jim Devine:
> >I'm not the one who invented the term [semi-proletarian]. So you'll have
> to explain why it
> >makes no sense. To me, it expresses the fact that the pure cases of theory
> >(proletarian, non-proletarian) often don't exist in pure form in empirical
> >and historical reality. We often see mixed forms, as when Trotsky, in his
> >HISTORY OF THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION, argues that Russia had an unevenly
> >developing combination of capitalism and pre-capitalist social relations.
Louis Proyect:
>Russia and colonial Peru had nothing in common. If an army had invaded
>Russia in the 15th century, destroyed the Czardom and pressed the lower
>ranks of society into gang labor working 14 hours a day to produce
>commodities for the world market, then we might be in the same ballpark.
_nothing in common_? so we didn't have homo sapiens dwelling in both of
those places? one of them didn't involve class oppression? one of them
didn't involve capitalism in any way, shape, or form?
I see nothing wrong with making analogies in order to understand what's
going on (Peru was like Russia in some ways) as long as the analogy isn't
taken too far (Peru was exactly like Russia). I would _never_ argue the
latter. Nor did I.
Saying that "mixed forms" rather than "pure cases" existed in both places
is hardly taking an analogy too far. Rather, it's a simple methodological
point, made by Paul Sweezy in the first chapter of THE THEORY OF CAPITALIST
DEVELOPMENT for example: it's a serious mistake to jump directly from an
abstract theory to an understanding of concrete, empirical, reality.
Are you saying that "an army had invaded [Peru] in the 15th century,
destroyed the [Inca Empire] and pressed the lower
ranks of society into gang labor working 14 hours a day to produce
commodities for the world market"? I'll assume you are. Though clearly we
agree that merchant capital -- the world market -- played a role, "gang
labor working 14 hours a day" is much more similar to slave labor than to
capitalist proletarian labor. But in your previous message, you said that
the latter prevailed in Peru.
>What took place in Latin America has to be examined on its own terms, not
>invoking Marx on mercantilism or Trotsky on combined and uneven
>development.
I'm not an empiricist, so I don't think this (examining each case on its
own terms) is a valid way to understand anything. It's perfectly possible
to study individual, specific, cases (e.g., Latin America) while relating
them to other cases (e.g., Russia) without losing track of the
specificities of the case being studied. That is, one can say "Louis is a
man" which says that he is like other men, without washing out all of his
endearing individual characteristics.
To say that each case must be examined only in its own terms (is this what
you're really saying?) is totally anti-theoretic, leaning heavily toward
stereotypes of post-modernism, full of sound and rhetorical fury but
signifying nothing.
>When I file my final post on Brenner/Wood at the end of the
>week, it should be obvious that there was no parallel for what took place
>in Latin America during the 17th to 19th centuries. It has to be examined
>on its own terms. Brenner and Wood never spend one word describing the
>reality of this world. It is not feudalism, nor is it mercantile capitalism.
But you said in the previous message it was capitalism (since work was done
by PROLETARIANS)? that means that it was _like Russia_ in many ways! Thus,
Latin America wasn't a unique case that should be analyzed solely in its
own terms. Or did the oobleck mode of production prevail, one that was
completely different from those of other countries, times, and places?
summary of the issues:
(1) the oppression of Peru involved markets and merchant capital, within
the context of the Spanish Empire. -- Both Blaut & Brenner would agree.
(2) the oppression of Peru involved proletarianized labor (Louis' previous
message) or it involved forced gang labor (Louis' current message). or
maybe a combination of both (semi-proletarization)?
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
