>When one seeks to understand a given social formation (after the
>emergence of capitalism), one may very well see a mix of communal,
>feudal, & capitalist relations, as Mari�tegui did, instead of seeing
>it as either purely communal, purely feudal, or purely capitalist, as
>Lou now would have us do. That's a different question from that of
>how capitalist relations of production arose to begin with. Brenner
>& Wood say contingent outcomes of class struggles in the countryside
>were the key to the emergence of capitalism. Jim Blaut argues that
>the key was the geographical location of "Europe" that enabled it to
>conquer & plunder the so-called New World. Where Lou stands on this
>is not clear to me.
>
>Yoshie
Mari�tegui was right on a lot of questions, but wrong on the 'feudal'
character of the Peruvian plantation system. Feudalism is characterized by
the creation of use-values in a closed, largely self-sustaining economy
based on the manor. No such social relations existed in Latin America after
the Inca and Aztec empires were crushed. These two empires were feudal in
fact.
Do me a favor and quote Blaut. One line characterizations of a scholar's
ten year project are hardly worth commenting on.
Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
