Re: Robert Brenner versus Karl Marx
I can't channel Bob today, since for some reason the ether is occluded by bad vibes. But I'd guess that he might use the metaphor that I've used before in pen-l. The destruction of the English independent peasantry and the resulting creation a large proletariat (dependent on the capitalists for survival) created an engine of growth for England. Looting from the colonies, the slave trade, etc. provided fuel for that engine at a crucial time. JD ^^^^^^ CB: The passage from Marx makes it crystal clear that Marx considered the colonial/slave trade system a necessary condition ( in the sense of modus ponens; not colonial system, not capitalism), a but for cause of the origin of capitalism. No colonial system, no capitalism in England. Without the "fuel" , the "engine" would not have generated capitalism in England. The important point I want to make is, that if Brenner doesn't agree with this, then he has the opposite opinion of Marx on this issue. That should be brought to the forefront of these debates a little more. Marx says that without the colonial system no capitalism in England as it went down. Brenner says the opposite of Marx. Marx _is_ a Marxist :>). Brenner is not, on this issue. The other point is that for Marx, capitalism is a world system at its origin too. So, the colonial production systems were capitalist production systems even if they had slave labor. Capitalism had a range of relations of production at its origin.
