Obviously, there were "pockets of capitalism" outside of England (the aggressor homeland of capitalism). But it was in England that capitalism first had the "critical mass" of proletarianization of the sort that Marx described in the last section of CAPITAL.
That's because he hardly knew anything about Mexico or the rest of Latin America for that matter. Even when he wrote (wrongly) about the Asiatic Mode of Production, he had invested a fair amount of time in research. There is no substitute for studying class relations in Latin America. Basically, 19th century Marxism was fairly innocent when it came to the colonial world. The big breakthrough was Lenin's study of capitalist property relations in the countryside. As I have pointed out here before, what I have been arguing on PEN-L was also argued by Lenin. Just because capitalism has different aspects than it did in Merrie Olde England, it does not mean that it wasn't capitalism.
--
www.marxmail.org
