>"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.
It is very likely that Marx was talking about pre-Columbian Peru, which did
lack money. If he wrote this about colonial Peru, which was awash in money,
then he obviously was talking out of ignorance.
Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
