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: the mita
Steve wrote: I'm afraid I never made the connection between Brenner and Warren. Must be something like the connection between Zeitlin and Pinochet. There is no connection between Zeitlin and Pinochet. I have no idea how you interpret things this way. All I said is that a professor in Chile named Andy Daitsman defended Pinochet's revolution using healthy swags of Zeitlin. Whatever Zeitlin thinks about Pinochet is an entirely different matter. My concern is how certain kinds of orthodox Marxism represented by Brenner, Laclau et al feed conservative trends in the academy. As Jaime Torras argues in the Fall 1980 Review of the Braudel Center, the Spanish academy utilized the Brenner thesis to institute a kind of neo-Kautskyism as official dogma. The reaction against the MR school was part of a conservatizing trend in academic Marxism. It was a way for academics to distance themselves from third world revolutions while clutching a cleaned up version of V. 1 of Capital to their breast. When you want to crawl your way to the top of the academy, there is a distinct disadvantage in identifying with third world revolutions. People will not only laugh at you, they might not give you tenure. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Re: the mita
Jim, I don't think this truism needs to be repeated in _this_ context, because what is at issue is not whether Marx was right or wrong in this or that particular, or even in this or that major corollary of his thought. The perspective Lou is arguing does not modify or correct Marx, it simply eliminates as garbage everything that makes Marx worth reading at all -- it dissolves the very core of Marx's thought and replaces it with a bourgeois radical critique of the moral evils of capitalism. What remains is neither Marxist nor materialist nor historical. Nor does it offer any serious basis for revolutionary praxis. Carrol A bourgeois radical critique of the moral evils of capitalism? Yes, its true. I am bourgeois to the core. Tonight when I get home I will have my manservant Nigel prepare my bath and make me a martini. Afterwards I will dine with George Soros at Le Cirque. I am moving him ever so slowly in the direction of embracing Marxism. As we know, a real measure of the success of our movement is how many people on Wall Street cite Karl Marx approvingly. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: the mita
Steve wrote: I'm afraid I never made the connection between Brenner and Warren. Must be something like the connection between Zeitlin and Pinochet. There is no connection between Zeitlin and Pinochet. I have no idea how you interpret things this way. All I said is that a professor in Chile named Andy Daitsman defended Pinochet's revolution using healthy swags of Zeitlin. Whatever Zeitlin thinks about Pinochet is an entirely different matter. My concern is how certain kinds of orthodox Marxism represented by Brenner, Laclau et al feed conservative trends in the academy. As Jaime Torras argues in the Fall 1980 Review of the Braudel Center, the Spanish academy utilized the Brenner thesis to institute a kind of neo-Kautskyism as official dogma. The reaction against the MR school was part of a conservatizing trend in academic Marxism. It was a way for academics to distance themselves from third world revolutions while clutching a cleaned up version of V. 1 of Capital to their breast. When you want to crawl your way to the top of the academy, there is a distinct disadvantage in identifying with third world revolutions. People will not only laugh at you, they might not give you tenure. Louis Proyect What Third-World revolutions really needed from proletariat intellectuals in rich imperial nations was not so much the latter's identification with the former as socialist revolutions in the belly of the beast, which didn't happen -- hence the former's collapse or retreat. You can't eat someone's identification with you, though you may be encouraged by it at times. Yoshie
Re: Re: the mita
What Third-World revolutions really needed from proletariat intellectuals in rich imperial nations was not so much the latter's identification with the former as socialist revolutions in the belly of the beast, which didn't happen -- hence the former's collapse or retreat. You can't eat someone's identification with you, though you may be encouraged by it at times. Yoshie Socialist revolutions in the belly of the beast? This is not really feasible at this time. What is feasible is for Marxist activists to provide solidarity to countries in struggle, whether Vietnam, Nicaragua or Cuba, etc. Brenner's diatribe against third worldism was a subtle cue that such activity had become dated. It was much more in the spirit of Marx to drive around in a jeep in places like Kenya looking for a progressive bourgeoisie to orient to, as Colin Leys did. No longer was there an interest in identifying peasant or working class insurgencies. Instead neo-Kautskyites on the payroll of a university would devote their time and intellect to promoting a third world version of the 19th century European capitalist class. While this venture might have been futile, at least it paid better and it wouldn't get you killed or tortured. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Re: the mita
Wow, Radical History Review allowed a Pinochet supporter be their webmaster?! http://chnm.gmu.edu/rhr/rhr.htm http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:YgZV_fFFqcE:chnm.gmu.edu/rhr/rhr.htm+An dy+Daitsman+hl=en http://www.google.com/search?q=Andy+Daitsman+hl=enlr=safe=offstart=10sa =N Jeesh... Michael Pugliese - Original Message - From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 6:07 AM Subject: [PEN-L:12323] Re: Re: the mita Steve wrote: I'm afraid I never made the connection between Brenner and Warren. Must be something like the connection between Zeitlin and Pinochet. There is no connection between Zeitlin and Pinochet. I have no idea how you interpret things this way. All I said is that a professor in Chile named Andy Daitsman defended Pinochet's revolution using healthy swags of Zeitlin. Whatever Zeitlin thinks about Pinochet is an entirely different matter. My concern is how certain kinds of orthodox Marxism represented by Brenner, Laclau et al feed conservative trends in the academy. As Jaime Torras argues in the Fall 1980 Review of the Braudel Center, the Spanish academy utilized the Brenner thesis to institute a kind of neo-Kautskyism as official dogma. The reaction against the MR school was part of a conservatizing trend in academic Marxism. It was a way for academics to distance themselves from third world revolutions while clutching a cleaned up version of V. 1 of Capital to their breast. When you want to crawl your way to the top of the academy, there is a distinct disadvantage in identifying with third world revolutions. People will not only laugh at you, they might not give you tenure. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: the mita
Lou says: What Third-World revolutions really needed from proletariat intellectuals in rich imperial nations was not so much the latter's identification with the former as socialist revolutions in the belly of the beast, which didn't happen -- hence the former's collapse or retreat. You can't eat someone's identification with you, though you may be encouraged by it at times. Yoshie Socialist revolutions in the belly of the beast? This is not really feasible at this time. What is feasible is for Marxist activists to provide solidarity to countries in struggle, whether Vietnam, Nicaragua or Cuba, etc. If that's not feasible, Third-World revolutions are practically doomed, though they may hobble along while trying to make accommodations to the world capitalist market. Even Cubans -- the best case of Third-World revolutions -- are having a hard time just getting by, increasingly dependent upon tourism foreign investment. Yoshie
Re: Re: the mita
If that's not feasible, Third-World revolutions are practically doomed, though they may hobble along while trying to make accommodations to the world capitalist market. Even Cubans -- the best case of Third-World revolutions -- are having a hard time just getting by, increasingly dependent upon tourism foreign investment. Yoshie This is not an accurate assessment of Cuba. This one is: Learn from Cuba, Says World Bank By Jim Lobe WASHINGTON, Apr 30 (IPS) - World Bank President James Wolfensohn Monday extolled the Communist government of President Fidel Castro for doing ''a great job'' in providing for the social welfare of the Cuban people. His remarks followed Sunday's publication of the Bank's 2001 edition of 'World Development Indicators' (WDI), which showed Cuba as topping virtually all other poor countries in health and education statistics. It also showed that Havana has actually improved its performance in both areas despite the continuation of the US trade embargo against it and the end of Soviet aid and subsidies for the Caribbean island more than ten years ago. ''Cuba has done a great job on education and health,'' Wolfensohn told reporters at the conclusion of the annual spring meetings of the Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). ''They have done a good job, and it does not embarrass me to admit it.'' His remarks reflect a growing appreciation in the Bank for Cuba's social record, despite recognition that Havana's economic policies are virtually the antithesis of the ''Washington Consensus'', the neo-liberal orthodoxy that has dominated the Bank's policy advice and its controversial structural adjustment programmes (SAPs) for most of the last 20 years. Some senior Bank officers, however, go so far as to suggest that other developing countries should take a very close look at Cuba's performance. ''It is in some sense almost an anti-model,'' according to Eric Swanson, the programme manager for the Bank's Development Data Group, which compiled the WDI, a tome of almost 400 pages covering scores of economic, social, and environmental indicators. Indeed, Cuba is living proof in many ways that the Bank's dictum that economic growth is a precondition for improving the lives of the poor is over-stated, if not downright wrong. The Bank has insisted for the past decade that improving the lives of the poor was its core mission. Besides North Korea, Cuba is the one developing country which, since 1960, has never received the slightest assistance, either in advice or in aid, from the Bank. It is not even a member, which means that Bank officers cannot travel to the island on official business. The island's economy, which suffered devastating losses in production after the Soviet Union withdrew its aid, especially its oil supplies, a decade ago, has yet to fully recover. Annual economic growth, fuelled in part by a growing tourism industry and limited foreign investment, has been halting and, for the most part, anaemic. Moreover, its economic policies are generally anathema to the Bank. The government controls virtually the entire economy, permitting private entrepreneurs the tiniest of spaces. It heavily subsidises virtually all staples and commodities; its currency is not convertible to anything. It retains tight control over all foreign investment, and often changes the rules abruptly and for political reasons. At the same time, however, its record of social achievement has not only been sustained; it's been enhanced, according to the WDI. It has reduced its infant mortality rate from 11 per 1,000 births in 1990 to seven in 1999, which places it firmly in the ranks of the western industrialised nations. It now stands at six, according to Jo Ritzen, the Bank's Vice President for Development Policy who visited Cuba privately several months ago to see for himself. By comparison, the infant mortality rate for Argentina stood at 18 in 1999; Chile's was down to ten; and Costa Rica, 12. For the entire Latin American and Caribbean region as a whole, the average was 30 in 1999. Similarly, the mortality rate for children under five in Cuba has fallen from 13 to eight per thousand over the decade. That figure is 50 percent lower than the rate in Chile, the Latin American country closest to Cuba's achievement. For the region as a whole, the average was 38 in 1999. ''Six for every 1,000 in infant mortality - the same level as Spain - is just unbelievable,'' according to Ritzen, a former education minister in the Netherlands. ''You observe it, and so you see that Cuba has done exceedingly well in the human development area.'' Indeed, in Ritzen's own field the figures tell much the same story. Net primary enrolment for both girls and boys reached 100 percent in 1997, up from 92 percent in 1990. That was as high as most developed nations, higher even than the US rate and well above 80-90 percent rates achieved by the most advanced Latin American countries. ''Even in education
Re: Re: Re: the mita
Jim Devine: I'm not the one who invented the term [semi-proletarian]. So you'll have to explain why it makes no sense. To me, it expresses the fact that the pure cases of theory (proletarian, non-proletarian) often don't exist in pure form in empirical and historical reality. We often see mixed forms, as when Trotsky, in his HISTORY OF THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION, argues that Russia had an unevenly developing combination of capitalism and pre-capitalist social relations. Louis Proyect: Russia and colonial Peru had nothing in common. If an army had invaded Russia in the 15th century, destroyed the Czardom and pressed the lower ranks of society into gang labor working 14 hours a day to produce commodities for the world market, then we might be in the same ballpark. _nothing in common_? so we didn't have homo sapiens dwelling in both of those places? one of them didn't involve class oppression? one of them didn't involve capitalism in any way, shape, or form? I see nothing wrong with making analogies in order to understand what's going on (Peru was like Russia in some ways) as long as the analogy isn't taken too far (Peru was exactly like Russia). I would _never_ argue the latter. Nor did I. Saying that mixed forms rather than pure cases existed in both places is hardly taking an analogy too far. Rather, it's a simple methodological point, made by Paul Sweezy in the first chapter of THE THEORY OF CAPITALIST DEVELOPMENT for example: it's a serious mistake to jump directly from an abstract theory to an understanding of concrete, empirical, reality. Are you saying that an army had invaded [Peru] in the 15th century, destroyed the [Inca Empire] and pressed the lower ranks of society into gang labor working 14 hours a day to produce commodities for the world market? I'll assume you are. Though clearly we agree that merchant capital -- the world market -- played a role, gang labor working 14 hours a day is much more similar to slave labor than to capitalist proletarian labor. But in your previous message, you said that the latter prevailed in Peru. What took place in Latin America has to be examined on its own terms, not invoking Marx on mercantilism or Trotsky on combined and uneven development. I'm not an empiricist, so I don't think this (examining each case on its own terms) is a valid way to understand anything. It's perfectly possible to study individual, specific, cases (e.g., Latin America) while relating them to other cases (e.g., Russia) without losing track of the specificities of the case being studied. That is, one can say Louis is a man which says that he is like other men, without washing out all of his endearing individual characteristics. 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. When I file my final post on Brenner/Wood at the end of the week, it should be obvious that there was no parallel for what took place in Latin America during the 17th to 19th centuries. It has to be examined on its own terms. Brenner and Wood never spend one word describing the reality of this world. It is not feudalism, nor is it mercantile capitalism. 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? 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. (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)? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Re: Re: the mita
marxism Chronological -- Find -- Thread -- Re: Musings of a Brennerite From: Louis Proyect Subject: Re: Musings of a Brennerite Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 12:04:49 -0800 In what sense is Andy Daitsman a Brennerite given the above very un-Brenner-like remark on the other capitalisms? Does he cite Brenner to support his musings? Yoshie In the same sense that Genovese is a Dobbsian. When I cited Genovese to that effect, you merely replied that no-no, Genovese doesn't understand Dobbs and has him all wrong. It is a waste of time to try to connect the dotted lines between Dobbs and Genovese or Daitsman and Brenner, because you are uncomfortable with the reactionary logic. Sorry, I can't help you with that. As you know, Yoshie, when there was a debate on Blaut-Brenner on PEN-L, it unleashed a tidal wave of reactionary beliefs from Wojtek Sokolowski's oddball marriage of Barrington Moore and hatred for the black liberation movement to Ricardo Duchesne's outspoken belief that capitalism has a progressive role to play in places like Puerto Rico or India. If you put Daitsman's crackpot defense of Pinochet side-by-side with Ricardo's procapitalist Marxism, there's virtually nothing to distinguish them apart. Only Connect --E.M. Forster Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/ Follow-Ups: Re: Musings of a Brennerite From: snedeker Re: Musings of a Brennerite From: Yoshie Furuhashi Chronological -- -- Thread -- Reply via email to - Original Message - From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 7:07 AM Subject: [PEN-L:12326] Re: Re: the mita What Third-World revolutions really needed from proletariat intellectuals in rich imperial nations was not so much the latter's identification with the former as socialist revolutions in the belly of the beast, which didn't happen -- hence the former's collapse or retreat. You can't eat someone's identification with you, though you may be encouraged by it at times. Yoshie Socialist revolutions in the belly of the beast? This is not really feasible at this time. What is feasible is for Marxist activists to provide solidarity to countries in struggle, whether Vietnam, Nicaragua or Cuba, etc. Brenner's diatribe against third worldism was a subtle cue that such activity had become dated. It was much more in the spirit of Marx to drive around in a jeep in places like Kenya looking for a progressive bourgeoisie to orient to, as Colin Leys did. No longer was there an interest in identifying peasant or working class insurgencies. Instead neo-Kautskyites on the payroll of a university would devote their time and intellect to promoting a third world version of the 19th century European capitalist class. While this venture might have been futile, at least it paid better and it wouldn't get you killed or tortured. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
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: the mita
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: What Third-World revolutions really needed from proletariat intellectuals in rich imperial nations was not so much the latter's identification with the former as socialist revolutions in the belly of the beast, which didn't happen -- hence the former's collapse or retreat. And such revolutions aren't likely to happen in the rich imperial nations if their left intellectuals are interested only in affairs thousands of miles from where they sit. Doug
Re: Re: Re: the mita
And such revolutions aren't likely to happen in the rich imperial nations if their left intellectuals are interested only in affairs thousands of miles from where they sit. Doug You forgot to mention that I live on the Upper East Side. Slipping in your old age? Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: the mita
If that's not feasible, Third-World revolutions are practically doomed, though they may hobble along while trying to make accommodations to the world capitalist market. Even Cubans -- the best case of Third-World revolutions -- are having a hard time just getting by, increasingly dependent upon tourism foreign investment. Yoshie This is not an accurate assessment of Cuba. This one is: Learn from Cuba, Says World Bank By Jim Lobe WASHINGTON, Apr 30 (IPS) - World Bank President James Wolfensohn Monday extolled the Communist government of President Fidel Castro for doing ''a great job'' in providing for the social welfare of the Cuban people. His remarks followed Sunday's publication of the Bank's 2001 edition of 'World Development Indicators' (WDI), which showed Cuba as topping virtually all other poor countries in health and education statistics. snip It's not news to socialists that Cuba tops all other poor countries in health and education statistics, though it is news that the World Bank speaks well of Cuba. It doesn't mean, though, that Cubans have an easy time getting necessary medicines, adequate nutrition, and so on. Yoshie
Re: Re: the mita
At 12:00 PM 5/29/01 -0500, you wrote: If that's not feasible, Third-World revolutions are practically doomed, though they may hobble along while trying to make accommodations to the world capitalist market. Even Cubans -- the best case of Third-World revolutions -- are having a hard time just getting by, increasingly dependent upon tourism foreign investment. Yoshie This is not an accurate assessment of Cuba. This one is: Learn from Cuba, Says World Bank By Jim Lobe WASHINGTON, Apr 30 (IPS) - World Bank President James Wolfensohn Monday extolled the Communist government of President Fidel Castro for doing ''a great job'' in providing for the social welfare of the Cuban people. His remarks followed Sunday's publication of the Bank's 2001 edition of 'World Development Indicators' (WDI), which showed Cuba as topping virtually all other poor countries in health and education statistics. snip It's not news to socialists that Cuba tops all other poor countries in health and education statistics, though it is news that the World Bank speaks well of Cuba. It doesn't mean, though, that Cubans have an easy time getting necessary medicines, adequate nutrition, and so on. more specifically addressing Yoshie's previous point, the rise of tourism and foreign investment in Cuba has encouraged the rise of the dollarized sector, which has encouraged a rise in economic inequality within Cuba. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: the mita
This thread is beginning to degenerate. A few important points have been made. Lou correctly maintains that it is important to understand how complex specific economic formations are. Even so, understanding is very difficult. People outside of California might have problems in understanding the specificity of the Californian economy. Even in Butte county, where I live, there are enormous differences between Chico and the outlying areas. Tim, who studies Chico full-time, has an imperfect analysis of the this small corner of the world. Given this complexity, it is dangerous to pretend that one can command adequate information about formations that are distant and time and space. Jim suggests that analogies can be a useful way of bootstrapping partial information. Lou says that doing so can be misleading. Both are correct. The main problem seems to be that people on the list insist on the complicating discussions by mixing in personal, emotional, and egotistical forces into what could otherwise be a fruitful dialogue. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: Re: the mita
Given this complexity, it is dangerous to pretend that one can command adequate information about formations that are distant and time and space. Michael Perelman So what is this? A justification for ignoring the facts about 16th to 18th century Mexico, Bolivia and Peru? If you took this kind of warning seriously, you never would have written The Invention of Capitalism which draws upon scholarly and source material written in and about England in this period. Guess what. The same kind of information exists for Mexico, Bolivia and Peru and I plan to draw on it for my final post. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: the mita
In a really odd way the debate between Yoshie Lou is recapitulating that between Stalin and Trotsky, with Lou arguing for socialism in one country and Yoshie taking Trotsky's position. :-) Carrol Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: If that's not feasible, Third-World revolutions are practically doomed, though they may hobble along while trying to make accommodations to the world capitalist market. Even Cubans -- the best case of Third-World revolutions -- are having a hard time just getting by, increasingly dependent upon tourism foreign investment. Yoshie This is not an accurate assessment of Cuba. This one is: Learn from Cuba, Says World Bank By Jim Lobe WASHINGTON, Apr 30 (IPS) - World Bank President James Wolfensohn Monday extolled the Communist government of President Fidel Castro for doing ''a great job'' in providing for the social welfare of the Cuban people. His remarks followed Sunday's publication of the Bank's 2001 edition of 'World Development Indicators' (WDI), which showed Cuba as topping virtually all other poor countries in health and education statistics. snip It's not news to socialists that Cuba tops all other poor countries in health and education statistics, though it is news that the World Bank speaks well of Cuba. It doesn't mean, though, that Cubans have an easy time getting necessary medicines, adequate nutrition, and so on. Yoshie
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. On Tue, May 29, 2001 at 01:17:17PM -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: Given this complexity, it is dangerous to pretend that one can command adequate information about formations that are distant and time and space. Michael Perelman So what is this? A justification for ignoring the facts about 16th to 18th century Mexico, Bolivia and Peru? If you took this kind of warning seriously, you never would have written The Invention of Capitalism which draws upon scholarly and source material written in and about England in this period. Guess what. The same kind of information exists for Mexico, Bolivia and Peru and I plan to draw on it for my final post. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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: the mita
It is a question of tone. On Tue, May 29, 2001 at 01:57:41PM -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: 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 -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: the mita
It is a question of tone. Michael Perelman I had an impression it was a matter of epistemology. Like whether or not somebody in Chico can truly understand what is happening in another country and in another century. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: the mita
No, it had to do with epistemology only insofar as it does not make sense to write with absolute certainly. Sorry, if I was not clear. On Tue, May 29, 2001 at 03:15:55PM -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: It is a question of tone. Michael Perelman I had an impression it was a matter of epistemology. Like whether or not somebody in Chico can truly understand what is happening in another country and in another century. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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:the mita
Jim Devine: 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. Sorry, I was under the impression we were discussing the class character of 16th to 18th century Latin America. If it was feudal as Ellen Meiksins Wood states it was, it is necessary to examine how different classes related to each other. This requires reading material like Steve Stern's book on the Incas, D.A. Brading's Miners and Merchants in Bourbon Mexico: 1763-1810, etc. 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. But I reject the idea that capitalism started in the English countryside. 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. Not at all. For example, his writings on India are plagued with error but his method allowed Indian Communist M.N. Roy to develop an analysis of how England underdeveloped India. 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. Is that what I am doing, throwing Capital in the dustbin? I would never do that. I am too firm a believer in recycling. I think this is the solution to the never-ending Blaut/Brenner Battle. Latin American forced-labor modes of exploitation (the mita, etc.) were drawn into the whirlpool of an international market dominated by the capitalistic mode of production (i.e., Europe-centered industrial capitalism). So, as with U.S. slavery, the barbaric conditions of forced labor -- the mita and similar -- were combined with the civilized conditions of the world market dominated by industrial capital, we see the worst of both worlds. I reject this analysis. Modern South Africa's economy revolved around mining based on unfree labor. The AFL-CIO boycotted South African coal in the 1970s because it was produced by what they characterized as indentured servants. If this country was anything but capitalist, including most of all the mines, then we just have different ideas about what Marxism means and how to apply it. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: the mita
--- Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim, who studies Chico full-time, has an imperfect analysis of the this small corner of the world... I think the difference is that I don't get paid to only sit around and think about it, and dream up theories and so forth. I very much enjoy being a lookie-loo on this list, but many of the arguments and the things people find important simply escape me. Maybe that reflects my lack of eduaction, but I think that in no small part it reflects you academics' disconnect with the real world. No offense intended; I'm learning a lot just reading through my hundreds of PEN-l messages, but I often find the list, well, arcane and obscure. I hold a broad marxist view of the world and am willing to keep it at that while trying to relate to the broad populace through my newspaper. I find discussion about 17th century Latin America interesting, but it's a long, long way from an interesting read on the Incas to encouraging Butte County workers to organize against their employers, to give just one example. There's been some excellent rhetoric (which I hope is reflected in action) on this list about supporting workers movements and so forth, but of late that seems to be eclipsed by heated arguments over subjects that not one worker in a thousand would understand. Theory's all well and good, and I appreciate the role of intellectuals, and I greatly admire some of the intellect apparent of this list, but I've got a newspaper to put out, I've got ads to sell, I've got bills to collect and others to pay, I've got to worry about whether or not my carriers are going to show up, etc, and then I have to find something to write about. For all this, I seem to have a paper that popular in at least some local circles, and has contributed to some, albeit small, political change. I guess I'm just trying to interject a bit of proportion to the conversations. I'll keep on the list and wade through the particulars of this or that take on whoever, but I would hope that PEN-lers at some point realize that they themselves are rather privileged to be having the conversation at all. Isn't the point to have some of real effect on the world, as opposed to being caught up in discussion group with no apparent relevance? Tim = Subscribe to the Chico Examiner for only $30 annually or $20 for six months. Mail cash or check payabe to Tim Bousquet to POBox 4627, Chico CA 95927 __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/
RE: Re: Re: the mita
Doug Henwood wrote: such revolutions aren't likely to happen in the rich imperial nations if their left intellectuals are interested only in affairs thousands of miles from where they sit. Are you saying that Louis Proyect is not interested in America? Mark
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: the mita
Mercantilism = Code of Hammurabi = Kelly Girls? Maybe Andre G. Frank is right about 5,000 year waves... 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. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Re: the mita
Rob Schaap wrote: 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). . . . Another commercial feature reflected in Hammurapi's code was the use of silver as _both_ a means of payment _and_ a measure of value. In early cultures the two most often varied: e.g., use silver or copper for means of payment but cattle for measure of value. By Jim Blaut's criteria, capitalism is at least 4000 years old and thus useless as a historical category. Carrol
Re: Re: the mita
Another commercial feature reflected in Hammurapi's code was the use of silver as _both_ a means of payment _and_ a measure of value. In early cultures the two most often varied: e.g., use silver or copper for means of payment but cattle for measure of value. By Jim Blaut's criteria, capitalism is at least 4000 years old and thus useless as a historical category. Carrol Absolutely correct. In fact, if you check the Epic of Gilgamesh, you will find the 27th chapter deals with Kelly Girls in copious detail. Hammerapi stated that anybody taking more than one coffee break in the morning would receive 300 lashes and would not be allowed to take a smoking break for at least a week. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Re: Re: Re: the mita
Another commercial feature reflected in Hammurapi's code was the use of silver as _both_ a means of payment _and_ a measure of value. In early cultures the two most often varied: e.g., use silver or copper for means of payment but cattle for measure of value. By Jim Blaut's criteria, capitalism is at least 4000 years old and thus useless as a historical category. Carrol Absolutely correct. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/ Alas, Louis admits that Carrol and Jim are correct. Steve
Re: Re: Re: the mita
On Mon, 28 May 2001, Louis Proyect wrote: Mercantilism = Code of Hammurabi = Kelly Girls? Why not? For you Brenner=Kautsky Graduate students of Ellen Wood=Fool Raymond Lau=Trotskyist Sect leafleter Zeitlin=Pinochet Steve
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: the mita
Let's keep this under control. Jim gave a very nice description of Marx's analysis of the mode of production. Lou asked him to relate those abstract topics to Latin America, which Marx and most of us do not know all that well. Marx was not familiar with the internet either. If Lou is correct, then we might ask what use Marx might be if we want to understand something other than 19th C. western Europe. It seems to me that Marx is useful, but we must be careful to avoid merely calling up various categories and applying them mechanically. I did not think that Jim was doing that, which is where I think that I disagree with Lou. I confess that Marx's movement from C-C to M-M . C-C' always seemed to be one of the more interesting of Marx's insights for me. On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 04:27:59PM -1000, Stephen E Philion wrote: On Mon, 28 May 2001, Louis Proyect wrote: Mercantilism = Code of Hammurabi = Kelly Girls? Why not? For you Brenner=Kautsky Graduate students of Ellen Wood=Fool Raymond Lau=Trotskyist Sect leafleter Zeitlin=Pinochet Steve -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: the mita
Michael Perelman wrote: Let's keep this under control. Jim gave a very nice description of Marx's analysis of the mode of production. Lou asked him to relate those abstract topics to Latin America, which Marx and most of us do not know all that well. Marx was not familiar with the internet either. Michael, the Internet was an invention of the late 20th century. It had not been invented when Marx was writing. However, colonial society had existed for more than 300 years when Marx was writing. He reflected his milieu by neglecting this social reality. Peter Linebaugh honed in on the problem with this May Day article: May 1, 2001 A May Day Meditation by Peter Linebaugh Comrades and Friends, May Day Greetings! Here is 'the day.' The day we long to become a journee', those days of the French Revolution when a throne would topple, the powerful would tumble, slavery be abolished, or the commons restored. Meanwhile, we search for a demo for the day, or we gather daffodils and some may for our loved ones and the kitchen table. We greet strangers with a smile and Happy May Day! We think of comrades around the world, in Africa, India, Russia, Indonesia, Mexico, Hong Kong. With our comrades we remember recent victories, and we mutter against, and curse our rulers. We take a few minutes to freshen up our knowledge of what happened there in Chicago in 1886 and 1887 before striding out into the fight of the day. So during this moment of studying the day, I'm going to take a text from Frederick Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, and I'll ask you to take it down from the top shelf of the spare room where you stuck it when Reagan came to power, or to go down into the basement and dig it out of a mildewed carton whence you might have disdainfully put it during the Clinton years. No where does Engels mention the slave trade. No where does Engels mention the witch burnings. No where does Engels mention the genocide of the indigenous peoples. He writes, A durable reign of the bourgeoisie has been possible only in countries like America, where feudalism was unknown, and society at the very beginning started from a bourgeois basis. Dearie me. Dear, dear, dear! He has forgotten everything, it seems. He has swallowed hook, line, and sinker the whole schemata of: Savagery leads to Barbarism leads to Feudalism leads to Capitalism which, in turn, with a bit of luck, c., c., will be transformed, down the line, in the future, when the times are ripe, c. c. into socialism and communism. He has overlooked the struggle of the Indians, or the indigenous people, of the red, white, and black Indians. The fact is that commonism preceded capitalism on the north American continent, not feudalism. The genocide was so complete, the racism so effective, that there is not even a trace or relic of memory of the prior societies. 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: the mita
Lou, why not give us the whole text instead of the parts that are ironical. You know this section hardly does justice to the argument Linebaugh is making in support of Marx and Engels... 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 On Mon, 28 May 2001, Louis Proyect wrote: Michael Perelman wrote: Let's keep this under control. Jim gave a very nice description of Marx's analysis of the mode of production. Lou asked him to relate those abstract topics to Latin America, which Marx and most of us do not know all that well. Marx was not familiar with the internet either. Michael, the Internet was an invention of the late 20th century. It had not been invented when Marx was writing. However, colonial society had existed for more than 300 years when Marx was writing. He reflected his milieu by neglecting this social reality. Peter Linebaugh honed in on the problem with this May Day article: May 1, 2001 A May Day Meditation by Peter Linebaugh Comrades and Friends, May Day Greetings! Here is 'the day.' The day we long to become a journee', those days of the French Revolution when a throne would topple, the powerful would tumble, slavery be abolished, or the commons restored. Meanwhile, we search for a demo for the day, or we gather daffodils and some may for our loved ones and the kitchen table. We greet strangers with a smile and Happy May Day! We think of comrades around the world, in Africa, India, Russia, Indonesia, Mexico, Hong Kong. With our comrades we remember recent victories, and we mutter against, and curse our rulers. We take a few minutes to freshen up our knowledge of what happened there in Chicago in 1886 and 1887 before striding out into the fight of the day. So during this moment of studying the day, I'm going to take a text from Frederick Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, and I'll ask you to take it down from the top shelf of the spare room where you stuck it when Reagan came to power, or to go down into the basement and dig it out of a mildewed carton whence you might have disdainfully put it during the Clinton years. No where does Engels mention the slave trade. No where does Engels mention the witch burnings. No where does Engels mention the genocide of the indigenous peoples. He writes, A durable reign of the bourgeoisie has been possible only in countries like America, where feudalism was unknown, and society at the very beginning started from a bourgeois basis. Dearie me. Dear, dear, dear! He has forgotten everything, it seems. He has swallowed hook, line, and sinker the whole schemata of: Savagery leads to Barbarism leads to Feudalism leads to Capitalism which, in turn, with a bit of luck, c., c., will be transformed, down the line, in the future, when the times are ripe, c. c. into socialism and communism. He has overlooked the struggle of the Indians, or the indigenous people, of the red, white, and black Indians. The fact is that commonism preceded capitalism on the north American continent, not feudalism. The genocide was so complete, the racism so effective, that there is not even a trace or relic of memory of the prior societies. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Re: the mita
I wrote: 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.[*] Louis responds: ... 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. Just because I cited Marx's theory doesn't mean that I believe that everything the poor old bastard said was true or applies to all situations. (I don't know where you got the idea that I was a dogmatist.) Similarly, just because he and Fred were wrong on a lot of empirical matters (though Hal Draper had an suggestive article on Bolivar) doesn't mean that we should can their theory completely. Remember, I advocate not quoting from the Masters but instead the use of the living Marxian political economy that is used by many in the social sciences. On specifics, Marx presented a very good argument for the case that merely buying selling don't lead to the creation of surplus-value. It's integral to the labor theory of value. In fact, if we reject it, then it sure looks as if all we've got is neoclassical economics (supply, demand, and imperfections, which only describes the superficial appearances of commodity-producing society). Or we've got no theory of commodity-producing society at all -- or at best a fuzzy theory. The latter may do if one's main task is only to describe and/or denounce, but it's hardly satisfying if one is trying to understand, in order to get a long-term perspective that might help with strategy, tactics, and the like. Also, I in no way rely on Marx's theory of the Asiatic Mode of Production. Instead, I use the somewhat similar concept of the tributary mode of production developed by Samir Amin and others. BTW, Amin seems very conscious of the dependency theory and third worldist perspectives. 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. This is _exactly_ what I was saying. I'm glad you've changed your mind on this issue. 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. This is absolutely right, though I think it's a mistake to fetishize silver, as I've argued before. It took a PROLETARIAT to get it out of the ground, didn't it? Why can't the back-breaking, bone-crushing, work of mining silver be done by slaves or other forms of forced (non-proletarian) labor? In fact, forced labor fits the job better (back before the development of fancy machinery) much better than free proletarians. Most free proletarians won't do that kind of job unless the alternatives are significantly worse -- or the pay is very high. I doubt that the latter was true under the _mita_. South African gold mines used the extra-economic force involved with the system of apartheid to make sure that the former was true. Of course, you might be using a different definition of proletariat than I do. As I've said before, definitions are conventional rather than being something that can be settled absolutely and completely. But I try to use Marx's definitions as the basis for my convention. (Not that he was always right.) The 'mita' was an early form of capitalist exploitation of labor. ... That's by your definition, i.e., under the theoretical conventions that you follow. (BTW, I'm unclear what your theory is.) Under my definition, I would say that the mita was a kind of forced labor (and thus not a proletarian kind of labor, i.e., not under the direct aegis of industrial capital, full-blown capitalism). As I noted, the product of this forced labor was distributed by merchant capital, which was able to claim a piece of the action, a part of the surplus-product that this forced labor produced. 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
Re: Re: the mita
Jim Devine: I'm not the one who invented the term. So you'll have to explain why it makes no sense. To me, it expresses the fact that the pure cases of theory (proletarian, non-proletarian) often don't exist in pure form in empirical and historical reality. We often see mixed forms, as when Trotsky, in his HISTORY OF THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION, argues that Russia had an unevenly developing combination of capitalism and pre-capitalist social relations. Russia and colonial Peru had nothing in common. If an army had invaded Russia in the 15th century, destroyed the Czardom and pressed the lower ranks of society into gang labor working 14 hours a day to produce commodities for the world market, then we might be in the same ballpark. What took place in Latin America has to be examined on its own terms, not invoking Marx on mercantilism or Trotsky on combined and uneven development. When I file my final post on Brenner/Wood at the end of the week, it should be obvious that there was no parallel for what took place in Latin America during the 17th to 19th centuries. It has to be examined on its own terms. Brenner and Wood never spend one word describing the reality of this world. It is not feudalism, nor is it mercantile capitalism. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
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: the mita
When first young _Maro_* in his boundless Mind A work t'outlast Immortal _Rome_ design'd, Perhaps he seem'd _above_ the Critick's Law, And but from _Nature's Fountains_ scorn'd to draw: But when t'examine ev'ry Part he came, _Nature_ and _Homer_ were, he found, the _same_ Convinc'd, amaz'd, he checks the bold Design, And Rules as strict his labour'd Work confine, As if the _Stagyrite_^ o'erlooked each Line. Learn hence for Ancient _Rules_ a just Esteem; To copy _Nature_ is to copy _Them_. (*Virgil; ^Aristotle) (A. Pope, _Essay on Criticism_, 130-140) Jim Devine wrote: [Large Clip] Of course, you might be using a different definition of proletariat than I do. As I've said before, definitions are conventional rather than being something that can be settled absolutely and completely. But I try to use Marx's definitions as the basis for my convention. (Not that he was always right.) [large clip] _Not that he was always right_ Jim, I don't think this truism needs to be repeated in _this_ context, because what is at issue is not whether Marx was right or wrong in this or that particular, or even in this or that major corollary of his thought. The perspective Lou is arguing does not modify or correct Marx, it simply eliminates as garbage everything that makes Marx worth reading at all -- it dissolves the very core of Marx's thought and replaces it with a bourgeois radical critique of the moral evils of capitalism. What remains is neither Marxist nor materialist nor historical. Nor does it offer any serious basis for revolutionary praxis. Carrol
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/
Re: Re: Re: the mita
At 04:29 PM 05/25/2001 -0400, you wrote: Jim Devine: with regard to the case of contemporary Africa: in the world system, merchant capital has become subordinated to industrial capital (part of a unified system), so one might say that Africa is dominated by industrial capital even if it isn't part of it. This makes absolutely no sense to me. 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.[*] Nonetheless, it's possible for an individual merchant to make a profit if there are differences in prices (that aren't swamped by transportation costs, etc.) More likely, M-C-M makes a profit by taking a piece of the action, a fraction of the surplus-product resulting from some labor process, in return for facilitating the marketing, etc., for the direct exploiter (the slave-owner, feudal lord, the industrial capitalist, etc.) Thus merchant capital lives off of various modes of exploitation. Industrial capital = buying labor-power and other inputs to use in production to produce consumer producer goods which are sold on the market for a profit (M - C - M'). Unlike for pure merchant capital, the M' M arises from the production process itself, because the labor done produces more than enough to cover the cost of the labor-power hired. This occurs because of proletarianization, the separation of the direct producers from both direct coercion in production and from direct access to the means of production and subsistence. (This is Marx's double freedom.) Whereas merchant capital can exist in the interstices of non-capitalist societies, industrial capitalism incorporates an entire society (and is continuing to swallow more and more of the world each year, creating a world society). In last 200 years or so, most non-capitalist modes of exploitation have been swept aside (often after a preliminary phase where they were subordinated to merchant or industrial capital), so that merchant capital has gone from mediating between industrial capital and other modes of exploitation to simply being a phase in the circulation of industrial capital, either in the buying of inputs or the selling of outputs. Often, 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.) Africa has been almost totally subordinated to the world market, which itself is dominated by industrial capital. This is especially true in raw-material extraction, traditional tropical crops, and the new commercial agriculture. There's not much in the way of industrial capital itself, except in advanced areas like the Republic of South Africa and Egypt, though the low-wage/pliable workers/high pollution path to capitalist development might be possible. However, as an article posted to pen-l noted awhile back, many countries are much more open to the cold wind of the world market than rich countries are. Nonetheless, there are areas which have been shoved aside by the capitalist juggernaut. In this case, Joan Robinson's quip applies: there's one thing worse than being exploited by capitalism, i.e., not being exploited. Once capitalism is established, it's better to work for capital than to be unemployed. (Once the world capitalist system is established, this is akin to the rational core of Brad's recent comment that it's better to get a loan from the IMF than to not do so. If you're poor and the banks refuse to lend to you, Lenny the Loan-Shark's services seem like a good thing.) The stoop labor ... under conditions of widespread coercion is exactly the kind of forced-labor mode of exploitation that isn't true proletarianization, isn't part of full-blown industrial capitalism in Marx's terms. My statement started with if merchant capitalism ... were the same as industrial capitalism because I _reject_ that premise. Neither does this [make sense]. I don't want to repeat myself (since I think the explanation can be found above). 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. Under situations where labor is subject to direct coercion, such events as increasing
Re: the mita
Lou wrote: The reality in Latin America is that pre-existing feudal societies were crushed and their inhabitants turned into laborers. Throughout the 16th century, there were steady evolutions in the form that this labor was expressed. In the first 3rd of the century you had encomiendas, which were an unsuccessful attempt to transplant Spanish forms. This was replaced by the repartamento, (equivalent to the 'mita', an Indian word) in the mid-century. But by the end of the century most Indians were WAGE LABORERS. Throughout the entire century, however, Indians did the same thing no matter how they were paid. They dug silver, which was transported on ships to Europe. Nowhere else in history do you have the same kind of socio-economic transformation. On the cusp of the capitalist dawn of history, you find 90 percent of the indigenous peoples (those that were not exterminated or killed by smallpox, etc.) turned into laborers. The reviewer's of the following book urges a more nuanced understanding of proletarianization (A clear free-labor versus forced-labor dichotomy does not correspond to reality) in the centuries under discussion: * Journal of World History 10.2 (1999) 468-473 Book Review Mines of Silver and Gold in the Americas Mines of Silver and Gold in the Americas. Edited by Peter Bakewell. An Expanding World: The European Impact on World History, 1450-1800, vol. 19. Series edited by A. J. R. Russell-Wood. Brookfield, Vt.: Ashgate/Variorum, 1997. Pp. xxiv + 396. $124.95 (cloth). ...The most important gold and silver mining areas in the world throughout the early modern period were located in Spanish America (although Japan was a mining powerhouse, too). Bakewell's volume provides an excellent panorama of the evolution of Spanish American mining and the history of technology, including two essays by Robert C. West on precontact and early Spanish mining practices in Peru and Mexico, but our comments will focus only on general mining trends and certain issues surrounding new technologies and labor markets. This permits us to concentrate attention on the international (indeed, global) context of American mining. An essay by Richard L. Garner provides a broad overview of Peruvian and Mexican mining throughout the colonial period. Taking Spanish America as a whole, silver production rates tripled during the second half of the sixteenth century, dropped by a third during the seventeenth century, then tripled again during the eighteenth century. There is no doubt that Peru--really PotosÃ--dominated American mine production from the mid-sixteenth century through 1620. Peruvian output plummeted during the remainder of the seventeenth century, while Mexican production grew. By the last quarter of the seventeenth century, Mexico became and remained the chief silver producer in the world. Peruvian silver production, most of which by that time exited via Buenos Aires, surged in the late eighteenth century (Fisher, p. 298), but Mexican silver production was vastly greater by this time, reaching the staggering annual average of 21-24 million pesos by the end of the eighteenth century (Coatsworth, p. 266). Attempts to understand the reasons for the rise of Mexican mining (and Peru's decline) lead to broad implications for the general, multi-century evolution of Latin American society and its trading partners. The literature states that Peruvian mines played out (that is, Peruvian ore quality was poor compared with Mexican ore), while Peru suffered higher mercury prices and state taxes than did Mexico. The ore-quality argument is sound, but the latter two arguments are less convincing (high taxes and high mercury prices also prevailed during Peru's heyday, so why did not these negative factors kill off silver production during the earlier period?). Several essays focus on differing labor-supply systems in Mexico and Peru. In an essay on Mexican mining in the 1590s, Bakewell argues that a surprising conclusion about the mining force also emerges: free Indian wage labourers comprised almost 70% of it [the labor force]. This finding goes far towards contradicting past assumptions that mining labour in colonial Mexico was forced labour (p. 172). The Mexican mining industry is therefore characterized as having been different from that of Peru in that Mexico presumably faced higher labor costs (because Mexican miners had to pay free-labor wages). But was the situation so straightforward? The Spanish government is said to have been forced into the famous mita draft-labor system in Peru because European diseases wiped out the indigenous labor pool and because the mines were concentrated in an extremely remote region; without the forced-labor mita many mines would not have shown any profit, even after the crown cut silver taxes and mercury prices in the 18th century, and the treasury would have lost revenue (Garner, p. 250). Yet this issue becomes more
Re: Re: the mita
The reviewer's of the following book urges a more nuanced understanding of proletarianization (A clear free-labor versus forced-labor dichotomy does not correspond to reality) in the centuries under discussion: (clip) particular time. A clear free-labor versus forced-labor dichotomy does not correspond to reality I have already made the identical point, probably numerous times, citing Steve Stern's article on world systems theory and Spanish colonial America. Stern said that the mines were not typified by a pure form of slavery, but combined wage workers, debt peons, and *independent Indian subcontractors* hiring either kind of labor. In any case, this is not what the debate is about. It is whether or not the mines, plantations, etc. of the pre-industrial revolution period were feudal as Laclau said, mercantile-commercial as Devine said, or capitalist as I say. Karl Marx, Theories of Surplus Value, part 2: The fact that we now not only call the plantation owners in America capitalists, but that they *are* capitalists, is based on their existence as anomalies within a world market based on free labor. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Re: Re: Re: the mita
Grundrisse, p. 513. Louis Proyect wrote: Karl Marx, Theories of Surplus Value, part 2: The fact that we now not only call the plantation owners in America capitalists, but that they *are* capitalists, is based on their existence as anomalies within a world market based on free labor. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: the mita
The reviewer's of the following book urges a more nuanced understanding of proletarianization (A clear free-labor versus forced-labor dichotomy does not correspond to reality) in the centuries under discussion: (clip) particular time. A clear free-labor versus forced-labor dichotomy does not correspond to reality I have already made the identical point, probably numerous times, citing Steve Stern's article on world systems theory and Spanish colonial America. Stern said that the mines were not typified by a pure form of slavery, but combined wage workers, debt peons, and *independent Indian subcontractors* hiring either kind of labor. In any case, this is not what the debate is about. It is whether or not the mines, plantations, etc. of the pre-industrial revolution period were feudal as Laclau said, mercantile-commercial as Devine said, or capitalist as I say. Karl Marx, Theories of Surplus Value, part 2: The fact that we now not only call the plantation owners in America capitalists, but that they *are* capitalists, is based on their existence as anomalies within a world market based on free labor. Louis Proyect Free labor had to arise somehow somewhere for plantation owners' existence to become anomalies within a world market based on free labor. Yoshie
Re: the mita
Jim Devine: Volume III doesn't ignore the role of labor. One of Marx's clearest statements of historical materialism appears here: the specific... form in which unpaid surplus-labor is pumped out of the direct producers reveals the innermost secret, the hidden basis of the entire social structure and... the corresponding specific form of the state (p. 791-2 of the International Publishers' 1967 edition). Louis Proyect: This is rather schematic, isn't it? I was getting at the rather rich discussion of labor in V.1, with its historical detail. For me historical materialism is much more concrete, like discussion of the enclosure acts, etc. Yeah, it's schematic, but it's not a historical description but a statement of a philosophy of history -- on the level of his famous Preface to the CONTRIBUTION TO THE CRITIQUE OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. In fact, think that this statement (which goes on for much longer) is a much better theory of history than his Preface one, which leans toward forces of production determinism. It also fits better with Engels' and his vision in the MANIFESTO of history being a series of class struggles. But you should remember that I have never restricted myself to the volume 3 theory. Instead, I apply recent theories and discussions of merchant capital, which see it as merely articulating different modes of exploiting labor -- until it gets submerged in the circuit of industrial capital. Sorry. Have no idea what you are driving at. For example, see the literature summarized by Dupuy and Fitzgerald. [Dupuy, Alex, and Paul V. Fitzgerald. 1977. A Contribution to the Critique of the World System Perspective. The Insurgent Sociologist. 7(2) Spring.] Articulating means connecting different modes of exploitation and possibly organizing them. Merchant capital does so through market relations. BTW, Dupuy and Fitzgerald suggest that the impact of merchant's capital in the expanding capitalist world system is as follows: merchant's capital has a conservative influence on the social structures it dominates... Its actions will help dissolve the existing social relations only where these relations are themselves being transformed by and through class struggle [page 117]. Merchant capital doesn't simply work between empires of similar socio-economic levels, but within such systems as the triangle trade, which included what Mat F. calls the Enslavement industry. So throughout Latin America and the Caribbeans into the late 19th century, you had merchant capital? Methinks not. why not? No-one said that it was _only_ merchant capital. There's a lot of disagreement about the nature and impact of this articulation, but most people who study this stuff follow Marx to agree that merchant capital is not the same as full-blown or industrial capitalism (which involves mass proletarianization). So merchant capital must exist throughtout most of Africa today, where there is no full-blown or industrial capitalism, nor mass proletarianization. When a category becomes so all-encompassing, it loses all meaning. not really. It's just as all-encompassing as the concept of the market. But as Marx would emphasize, there's much more to economic life than markets. with regard to the case of contemporary Africa: in the world system, merchant capital has become subordinated to industrial capital (part of a unified system), so one might say that Africa is dominated by industrial capital even if it isn't part of it. If merchant capitalism (market activity) were the same as industrial capitalism, we have had industrial capitalism since several centuries You are missing something entirely. Latin America had no industry to speak of. The economy revolved around extraction of minerals and stoop labor for coffee, bananas, etc. under conditions of widespread coercion. If this is mercantile capitalism, then the term is useless. For Marx, industrial capital didn't have to be urban. For example, the first footnote of chapter 31 of volume I of CAPITAL says that he's using the term industrial capitalist in contradistinction to agricultural. But he clarifies that in his terms (the categoric sense of the terms), the farmer is an industrial capitalist as much as the manufacturer. Industrial capital refers to relations of production, not to what is produced. The stoop labor ... under conditions of widespread coercion is exactly the kind of forced-labor mode of exploitation that isn't true proletarianization, isn't part of full-blown industrial capitalism in Marx's terms. My statement started with if merchant capitalism ... were the same as industrial capitalism because I _reject_ that premise. B.C.E. In that case, nothing special happened to Western Europe around 1500 in terms of changing systems of labor exploitation. So one might say that the Western European conquest of most of the rest of the world was simply an extension or a continuation or a development of the
Re: Re: the mita
Jim Devine: with regard to the case of contemporary Africa: in the world system, merchant capital has become subordinated to industrial capital (part of a unified system), so one might say that Africa is dominated by industrial capital even if it isn't part of it. This makes absolutely no sense to me. The stoop labor ... under conditions of widespread coercion is exactly the kind of forced-labor mode of exploitation that isn't true proletarianization, isn't part of full-blown industrial capitalism in Marx's terms. My statement started with if merchant capitalism ... were the same as industrial capitalism because I _reject_ that premise. Neither does this. I used that phrase simply because I rejected the premise. In fact, it seems to me that A.G. Frank leans toward the capitalism = market (industrial capitalism = merchant capitalism) perspective, so this ahistorical vision seems to have its adherents. Yes, much of what you argue reminds me of A.G. Frank from a reverse mirror standpoint. The notion that there is this thing called 'mercantile capitalism' that existed in ancient Babylonia and in contemporary Congo is essentially ahistorical. Right, but one can be exploited in the production of use-values. Marx makes the point that this kind of exploitation has natural limits, whereas exploitation for exchange-value does not [see chapter 10, section 2, of volume I], but that doesn't mean that exploitation in the production of use-values doesn't happen. After all, in the natural economy phase of feudalism, most of the exploitation was done to produce use-values. Feudal exploitation? Like turning over a percentage of one's crops to the Lord so he could feed his soldiers? Methinks this is not what was going on in 18th century Jamaican sugar plantations. it's a phrase, one that indicates that I don't have the time to look this issue up, but that since you seem to have a lot of Latin American history on tap, you could do so. I already did coming home on the bus. James Lang states that by the 1700s Spanish colonial haciendas were involved in large-scale production of cotton that were used in local 'obrajes', the original textile sweatshops. I guess this was mercantile capitalism also. What I was saying is that debt peonage (which typically is much more than debt peonage, because the creditors are in league with the landlords, merchants, and the state) is not the same as proletarianization as Marx defined it (involving the double freedom, i.e., freedom from direct coercion and from direct access to the means of production and subsistence). So the characters in Traven's novels who received a wage for chopping down a mahogany tree were proletarian, while those who stood next to them chopping the same trees in order to pay off a debt were nonproletarian? Were these debt peons and hundreds of thousands of others like them in Mexico who rose up against the government in 1910 just under an illusion that they were confronting the capitalist system? The Mexican revolution of 1910-1920 was one of the greatest anti-capitalist struggles of this hemisphere. If we can't recognize this, then we have no business in politics. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
