Re: Re: Re: Re: the mita
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
Re: Re: Re: Re: the mita
Rob Schaap wrote: I mean, what's C without M? Nothing, right? It's not a C unless it's produced and exchanged for M. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the mita
Rob Schaap wrote: I mean, what's C without M? Doug writes: Nothing, right? It's not a C unless it's produced and exchanged for M. In theory at least, it would be possible to run a capitalist economy using barter. However, transactions costs would be very steep, while finance would be quite difficult. So M is in effect absolutely necessary. BTW, does the double A in Schaap have anything to do with the fact that sheep say Baa? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the mita
Doug Henwood wrote: Rob Schaap wrote: I mean, what's C without M? Nothing, right? It's not a C unless it's produced and exchanged for M. This may be one of those quibbles that flips bystanders out -- but isn't a product still a commodity even though it is resting unsold in an inventory, provided it was made for, _and only for_, exchange? And is my question of any importance, under any circumstances? Carrol
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the mita
Doug Henwood wrote: Rob Schaap wrote: I mean, what's C without M? Nothing, right? It's not a C unless it's produced and exchanged for M. I was just speculating that you can't run a system based on generalised commodity production without a conveniently portable universal measure and store of value. So I'm not saying nothing is produced (of course) or even that nothing is accumulated, just that limits would pertain such as to make a capitalist system untenable. No? Rob.
Re: Re: Re: Re: the mita
Jim Devine: 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. No, rather I am saying that Marxists should apply the historical materialist method to Latin America in the 16th through 18th century. Marx himself never did this. If you are serious about doing this, you have to roll up your sleeves and engage with scholarly material. Although Wood makes frequent references to the region, she never bothers with a concrete analysis of concrete class relations. For that you have to look elsewhere. At least with Brenner, you don't even get an inkling that the New World even existed. 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? There was capitalism in Russia, capitalism in Latin America and capitalism in Western Europe. Each region has its specific class relations and dynamics. Trotsky and Lenin analyzed Russia. Marx and Engels analyzed Western Europe. People like Celso Furtado, A.G. Frank, Mariategui, and Adolfo Gilly analyzed Latin America. My analysis rests on their work, not what Marx and Engels did not write. 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. 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. Krupp used slave labor throughout WWII. It remained capitalist. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Re: Re: the mita
What I meant was that we must understand that our understanding is imperfect and that we cannot speak as if we could command absolute truths. Michael Perelman Who is talking about absolute truths? I am simply preparing to describe extensive capitalist growth based on free wage labor in 18th century Mexico. I will obviously draw my own conclusions about this, but allow others to supply countervailing information. Needless to say, I won't hold my breath... Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the mita
On Tue, 29 May 2001, Louis Proyect wrote: Jim Devine: 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. Lou responded: There was capitalism in Russia, capitalism in Latin America and capitalism in Western Europe. Each region has its specific class relations and dynamics. Trotsky and Lenin analyzed Russia. Marx and Engels analyzed Western Europe. People like Celso Furtado, A.G. Frank, Mariategui, and Adolfo Gilly analyzed Latin America. My analysis rests on their work, not what Marx and Engels did not write. Why not also rely on the works of, say, Petras and Zeitlin in addition to Frank? Why would you prefer the work of Frank over these two, aside from the fact that Frank's position supports yours? When you say you have researched Latin America, that is true, but it is a very selective research. Any positions that don't support a world systems/dependency approach are out not relevant to LA for you, even though authors who challenge those very positions have done very relevant research on Lat. Am. Or at least explain to us how Frank's understanding of Lat. Am. is superior to Petras's or Zeitlin's. Steve
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the mita
Am. Or at least explain to us how Frank's understanding of Lat. Am. is superior to Petras's or Zeitlin's. Steve I have read Petras extensively. I consider him useful but ultraleft, especially on Nicaragua. However, he has not written that much about the 16th to 18th century which is of particular interest to me. As far as Zeitlin is concerned, I do plan to dismantle him at some point but for the post I am filing tomorrow my concentration will be on Colin Leys, another ortho-Marxist, neo-Kautskyite. Why don't you read and defend Zeitlin yourself? It would be of more use to PEN-L than the smirking provocations you waste our time with. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: RE: Re: Re: the mita
Mark Jones wrote: Are you also saying, that revolutions only happen when left intellectuals form vanguards? Nope. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the mita
On Tue, 29 May 2001, Louis Proyect wrote: Am. Or at least explain to us how Frank's understanding of Lat. Am. is superior to Petras's or Zeitlin's. Steve I have read Petras extensively. I consider him useful but ultraleft, especially on Nicaragua. However, he has not written that much about the 16th to 18th century which is of particular interest to me. As far as Zeitlin is concerned, I do plan to dismantle him at some point but for the post I am filing tomorrow my concentration will be on Colin Leys, another ortho-Marxist, neo-Kautskyite. That's an interesting position. You have not read Zeitlin, but before even reading him you plan to dismantle him. Why don't you read and defend Zeitlin yourself? It would be of more use to PEN-L than the smirking provocations you waste our time with. How do you know I'm smirking when I write these posts. Amazing powers you have all the way over there in the Big Apple. I have read Zeitlin, what charges do I have to defend him against? That his former student is a Pinochetist? Steve Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the mita
How do you know I'm smirking when I write these posts. Amazing powers you have all the way over there in the Big Apple. I don't know you if you are smirking or not, but I am glad that you don't deny you are writing provocations. I have read Zeitlin, what charges do I have to defend him against? That his former student is a Pinochetist? The question is not whether there are charges against him. Rather it is whether his analysis can clarify our understanding of such phenomena as indentured servitude, etc. Basically since you have done nothing but drop his name, I don't know if he is relevant to our discussions. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the mita
Jim Devine: 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. Louis Proyect: No, rather I am saying that Marxists should apply the historical materialist method to Latin America in the 16th through 18th century. Marx himself never did this. If you are serious about doing this, you have to roll up your sleeves and engage with scholarly material. Although Wood makes frequent references to the region, she never bothers with a concrete analysis of concrete class relations. For that you have to look elsewhere. At least with Brenner, you don't even get an inkling that the New World even existed. I think that it's a mistake to assume that every author -- or every author you dislike (for whatever reason) -- _must_ write about Latin America. That kind of standard can be used to trash anyone. For example, I never see you criticizing sexism or heterosexism. I never even see you deal with those subjects. Does this imply that you're sexist and hate gays? No. It's better to try to learn what can be learned from each author rather than splitting authors into two camps, bad guys and good guys and then throwing out the former. Splitting is very academic: one of the problems with academia is that people dwell on the competing schools vision, creating seemingly endless battles of various schools, rather than trying to draw out a synthesis. (In economics, on the other hand, there's only one Truth, neoclassical economics, there's only one God, Adam Smith's Invisible Hand, but the competing schools paradigm is applied within this framework.) Since the capitalist disease -- the cancerous world-wide expansion of capitalism -- seems to have started in Western Europe, specifically in England, it seems valid for the hated Brenner to study that area of the world. It's possible that this disease started somewhere else, but I've never seen you present the case for this possibility. 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? There was capitalism in Russia, capitalism in Latin America and capitalism in Western Europe. Each region has its specific class relations and dynamics. Trotsky and Lenin analyzed Russia. Marx and Engels analyzed Western Europe. People like Celso Furtado, A.G. Frank, Mariategui, and Adolfo Gilly analyzed Latin America. My analysis rests on their work, not what Marx and Engels did not write. But that doesn't imply that Marx's concepts -- his general theory of historical materialism political economy, not specific stuff like his early belief in the automatic stage theory of history -- are wrong. You never showed that. You seem to be arguing the empiricist, anti-theoretical theory, but you never really present an argument. Folks like Trotsky knew that Russian capitalism was different from German capitalism, but they also didn't reject all lessons learned from studying Germany in their effort to understand Russia. Trotsky never threw CAPITAL into the dust-bin of history. 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. I just talked to Jim's ghost who is standing above my left shoulder and he disagrees with you. so he thinks that markets played no role in Peru? (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. you changed your mind, then. I am interested in identifying the specific nature of the way in which capital was created. doesn't this involve identifying different forms of labor? Krupp used slave labor throughout WWII. It remained capitalist. that's because Nazi society _as a whole_ remained capitalist. As Baran Sweezy quote Hegel to say, the truth is the whole. At this point, I think it's worth quoting Marx (volume I, chapter 10, section 2): “Capital has not invented surplus-labor. Wherever a part of society possesses the monopoly of the means of production, the laborer, free or not free, must add to the working-time necessary for his own maintenance an extra working-time in order to produce the means of subsistence for the owners of the means of production, whether this proprietor be the Athenian [aristocrat], Etruscan theocrat, civis Romanus, Norman baron, American slave-owner, Wallachian Boyard, modern landlord or
Re: Re: Re: Re: the mita
Jim Devine: Merchant capital = buying selling consumer and producer goods on the market, M-C-M. As Marx argues, it's impossible (for a system of merchant capital as a whole) to extort surplus-labor -- and produce a surplus-product -- simply through buying and selling such goods.[*] Look, Jim, Karl Marx had very little understanding of the rest of the world in terms of modes of production. He theorized something called the Asiatic Mode of Production that had no correlation with reality. He knew little about Africa or Latin America, which is understandable given the fact that solid information was not easy to come by and even it if did, there was no compelling political reason for him to examine it. Marx and Engels, when they did write about Latin America, wrote howlingly ignorant things. Marx wrote that Bolivar was a bandit. Engels supported the USA against Mexico in the war of 1847 based on a basically racist attitude toward what he regarded as unproductive (ie., lazy) Mexicans. Mercantile capitalism nowhere addresses the specific forms of value creation in places like Peru and Bolivia. It rather is concerned with how capital is exchanged by those at the top. For example, Mandel notes that piracy is a key element in the development of mercantile capital. What is missing from this picture is how silver got out of the ground originally before Francis Drake got his hands on it. It took a PROLETARIAT to get it out of the ground, didn't it? The 'mita' was an early form of capitalist exploitation of labor. I will deal with this at some length in my final post on Brenner/Wood. If you want to get up to speed on the scholarly material, I'd recommend Steve Stern's Peru's Inidan Peoples and the Challenge of Spanish Conquest: Huamanga to 1640. in fact, it's part of the same bureaucratic apparatus. Many merchandising efforts today involve more that just buying and selling and are thus kinds of industrial capital (something is actually produced, rather than titles to property being transferred). (Being in a separate bureaucracy often promotes profits, however. For example, merchant capital describes the such companies as Kelly Services, which facilitates the purchase of labor power by industrial capitalists.) Mercantile capital describes the Kelly Services? Only on PEN-L, I'm afraid. Most everybody else would call this services, or the temporary labor sector of American industry. Instead, I want to make Brenner's point -- which builds on Marx -- about the difference between the situation where workers are subject to direct coercion (by the boss, not just by the state) and true proletarianization (the double freedom). I think this is the essence of Brenner's theory, even though it's been largely ignored in recent pen-l discussions. No, I have referred to it from the beginning. In essence it defines capitalist class relations as those that prevailed in 19th century Great Britain. Thus, based on this Aristotelian formal logic approach, everything that does not fit into the category is characterized as non-capitalist or pre-capitalist. Except when Marx himself described slave plantations as CAPITALIST. In which case it is conveniently ignored by you. political fragmentation and constant wars. (Slavery also discourages technical progress, since slaves resist any but the simplest kinds of work. I know that if I were a slave, I'd act dumb and break the boss-man's equipment.) Slavery might discourage technical progress, but it facilitates capitalist progress. Without slavery and other forms of unfree labor in the New World, the free labor/rapid technological progress paradigm of 18th and 19th century would have never taken shape. The capitalist SYSTEM is like a huge factory, with smart white people running complicated machines and people of color sweeping the floor. Under full-blown or industrial capital, on the other hand, the ability to apply direct coercion is severely limited, while the production process is under tremendous amount of direct control by the capitalists' proxies. Why do you insist on repeating things that everybody understands? This debate is not about the outcome of the industrial revolution, but the much more complex and harder to define process of early capitalism in the colonies which Marx never addressed. I don't know about the Congo, but saying that mercantile capital existed in ancient Babylonia is simply saying that markets existed back then. If I remember correctly, some of Hammurabi's code referred to market transactions. If there any experts on this subject reading this, please correct me if I'm wrong. I am an expert. You are wrong. That doesn't contradict what I've read. My interpretation is that these _obrajes_ probably did not truly involve proletarian labor because the workers were peons and were competing with those under slave-like conditions. (I don't have enough information, though, to be conclusive.) Your interpretation is wrong. They did rely
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the mita
Quoth Jim: If I remember correctly, some of Hammurabi's code referred to market transactions. If there any experts on this subject reading this, please correct me if I'm wrong. Respondeth Lou: I am an expert. You are wrong. One small addition to Lou's thoughts - they're probably wrong. The stela at Susa records +/- 282 of H's legal decisions, and many of 'em are to do with rules for commerce (on price setting for services, differential tariffs and the nature of rights and obligations between landowners and the workers of the land). Rules that do the sort of thing ME write about in the Manifesto insofar as an attempt is made to supplant lots of traditional relations and their concomitant rights (although the penalty schedule does evince a traditional power differential). I'm of the impression that much of what we might call 'mercantilism' was in place - the code was meant to standardise trade practices across lines isomorphic to national boundaries, and the class of merchants was a politically powerful class, with strong linkages to a 'state' which recognised their role, privileged it, and carefully regulated it. Cheers, Rob.
Re: Re: Re: Re: the mita
Alas, Louis admits that Carrol and Jim are correct. Steve Of course they are correct. How can anybody deny that ancient Babylonian society and day labor, the fastest growing job category in the USA by some accounts, both fall under the rubric of mercantile capitalism. In fact the first job I ever had before I became a computer programmer was with Office Temp. They sent me out to steal gold bullion from a Brinks truck in order to pay for Chinese Ming vases. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the mita
On Mon, 28 May 2001, Louis Proyect wrote: Alas, Louis admits that Carrol and Jim are correct. Steve Of course they are correct. How can anybody deny that ancient Babylonian society and day labor, the fastest growing job category in the USA by some accounts, both fall under the rubric of mercantile capitalism. In fact the it seemed to me that what your saying is consistent with the arguments Wood makes about Ancient Greek slavery in Peasant Citizen and Slave...or for that matter in her book Origins of Capitalism...
Re: Re: Re: Re: the mita
And ain't it funny, when pomo's make the same exact kind of argument about Marx and Engels you have a Dick Cheney, but when the post-colonialists' 'world systems' folks make the argument that Marx was 'eurocentric, teleological', etc. hey you just grab it and run with it. Ahmad's section on Marx on India I think does more than a fair job of refuting simplistic accounts of Marx's views on colonialism, teloeology, etc. Steve Ahmad shows that Marx's Herald Tribune articles were based on ignorance. What excuse do people like Bill Warren, Colin Leys, Robert Brenner and Ernesto Laclau have? Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the mita
I'm afraid I never made the connection between Brenner and Warren. Must be something like the connection between Zeitlin and Pinochet...or Raymond Lau and some dogmatic trotskyist sloganeer... The arguments that Ahmad makes about the need to take seriously the study of specific class relations in 'post-colonial' countries that give rise to the nature of dependent relations between rich and poor countries are entirely consistent with Brenner's arguments to the same effect found in his 1979 argument against Dependency Theory. Again, if the pomos claim that Marxism is all about teleology, economic determinism etc., you can't accept that argument. Let a 'post-colonialist' or 'world-system' theorist make the same argument and it's A-Ok in your book...At least Ahmad is consistent, he doesn't accept that sloppy argument from pomos or your world system theory heroes... Steve On Mon, 28 May 2001, Louis Proyect wrote: And ain't it funny, when pomo's make the same exact kind of argument about Marx and Engels you have a Dick Cheney, but when the post-colonialists' 'world systems' folks make the argument that Marx was 'eurocentric, teleological', etc. hey you just grab it and run with it. Ahmad's section on Marx on India I think does more than a fair job of refuting simplistic accounts of Marx's views on colonialism, teloeology, etc. Steve Ahmad shows that Marx's Herald Tribune articles were based on ignorance. What excuse do people like Bill Warren, Colin Leys, Robert Brenner and Ernesto Laclau have? Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
