>>(1) the oppression of Peru involved markets and merchant capital,
>>within the context of the Spanish Empire. -- Both Blaut & Brenner >>would agree.
>I just talked to Jim's ghost who is standing above my left shoulder >and he
disagrees with you.
>>(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)?
>I am not interested in identifying the forms of labor. I am interested >in
identifying the specific nature of the way in which capital was >created.
Does this bit from the Grundrisse (1.3 'The Method of Political Economy') help
to that end?
"On the other hand, it may be said that there are highly developed but
historically less mature forms of society in which the highest economic forms
are to be found, such as cooperation, advanced division of labour etc, and yet
there is no money in existence, eg. Peru"
Doesn't sound like proletarianised labour, and (as at 1857) doesn't really
sound like capitalism for that matter - not if we're trying to keep that tag
useful, anyway. I mean, what's C without M?
Out of my depth,
Rob.
