Yes, I answered Wojtek's question when he asked it a long time ago. And it doesn't pose any kind of challenge to the position I have been putting forth on the issues on this thread. So, the response to you remains simple also: Wojtek didn't find any flaws in what I have been saying. Your comment below certainly doesn't "simply" point out how Wojtek has found flaws in what I am saying. I guess for starters, my position is not that "it is only the gold". So right away Wojtek is not finding a flaw in what I am saying. That should settle it right there. Get it ? Wojtek is attacking a straw man, so any flaws he finds are not in my argument. But Wojtek's arguments are sort of multivariate confused, so there isn't always a simple reply to all the errors in his posts. But to go beyond the simple, gold did not play a role in the primitive accumulation of capitalism in Europe because it was gold. So, its being gold would not have caused capitalism to arise in South America. So, that is the answer directly to Wojtek's question. Gold played a role in the original accumulation of capitalism because the social arrangements of the European colonialism and slavery of the period allowed the Europeans to exploit the labor of Indian miners getting the gold commodity at a very high rate of exploitation or profit. So , it was the exchange-value or surplus value of the gold, not the chemical composition or particular use-value of gold that was unique about the gold mining business in contributing to the initial take off of European capitalism. Thus, it is precisely certain social arrangements (not "only the gold" , as Wojtek put it), but those between the European explorers and the Indian miners (not those inside of Europe only) that explains the role of the gold business in the origin of capitalism in Europe. Finally, I say that capitalism arose in Europe not only because of its slavery and colonial system ,but also because of the founding of the institution of wage-labor, meaning wage-labor becoming the prevailing social arrangement. So, the absence of wage-labor as the prevailing social arrangement in South America is a further explanation as to why gold in South America , or any other type of use-value in South America would not cause capitalism to arise in South America. My explanation is based on social arrangements analysis or analysis of relations of production. Capitalism originated in Europe because of two types of relations of production: 1) the establishment of prevailing wage or free labor relations of production,especially in England and Holland 2) slave and colonialist relations of production outside of Europe. Both are necessary , but neither is a sufficient condition for this origin of capitalism. The explanation is not based on technological discoveries or the chemical or mechanical qualities of gold or any other raw material. Thus, Wojtek's simple question finds no flaw in my argument. Charles Brown >>> "Rod Hay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 09/29/99 03:42PM >>> The answer is simple Charles Gold is only wealth in certain social arrangements. Northwest Europe had those arrangements. A lot of other places didn't. The only possible exception is China. So the emphasis should be on those social arrangements rather than the gold. Wojtek asked if it was only the gold why didn't South America develop a capitalist economy. Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archives http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://members.tripod.com/rodhay/batochebooks.html http://www.abebooks.com/home/BATOCHEBOOKS/ ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
