Jim Devine:
>Of course, debates about definitions aren't really very substantive:
>whether or not the "mita" was capitalist depends more on one's definition
>of capitalism than it does on the empirical nature of the mita.
But based on this August 11, 1873 correspondence Karl Marx agrees with me,
not you:
Meine Liebe Friedrich,
It has been a busy week at the British Museum where I have been sifting
through data on 16th century Peru and Bolivia as part of my ethnological
survey of pre-Columbian society.
I have made the most extraordinary discovery. In Peru the Spaniards had an
institution they called the 'mita' which required the Indians to fulfill
labor obligations. While superficially resembling precapitalist class
relations, the 'mita' has more in common with contemporary Great Britain
once you see through to the dialectical nub of the matter. Hegel said
apropos of this--of course absent the materialist 'sine qua non'--that,
"Oyfen himmel a yarid!"
Please tell Fleigelheimer to send funds immediately. My darling Jenny has
been gaining a pound a week lately and I have to buy her new knickers.
Keep the faith,
Karl
Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
