Would somebody explain to me how this discussion is going beyond the old
Indian mode of production debate?

Assume that that southern US in the early 19th C. were a separate country.
Being basically a slave economy, it would not seem like a capitalist
economy -- looking at the US by itself.  From the perspective of the
world economy as a whole, the US South was supplying one of the basic
"fuels" of capitalism -- making it into a capitalist economy.

One of the most attractive aspects of Capital was a principle that Marx
violated himself:  capitalists and workers were "character masks"; i.e.
they played out a role given to them, like actors in a play -- moral
outrage was not the appropriate perspective.  Marx, being human, could not
avoid expressing his own moral outrage, nonetheless.

 -- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to