Louis Proyect wrote:
What are you talking about? I simply said Marx wrote very
little--almost nothing indeed--about colonial Latin America. I am
quite sure about this.
I'm obviously talking about your views on capitalist production.
You've written a lot on that. For at least half a decade, you've been
arguing that the essential nature of modern capitalist production is
extra-economic exploitation, colonial pillage, slavery, etc.
I'm sure Marx lacked detailed knowledge of many things. But how does
that refute his general conceptualization of capitalist production?
Based on your much greater knowledge of colonial Latin American
history, how did Marx get wrong the essence of capitalist production
as production of surplus value by free wage workers -- free in the
sense of lacking wealth and of not being extra-economically tied to
their exploiters?
Of course -- if one so desires -- this can be reduced to a mere
terminological dispute. And everyone is free to choose a different
content for categories that Marx used to denote very specific
phenomena (that have co-relatives in today's capitalism).
I am not sure that Marx focused that much on categories. Perhaps you
are thinking of Aristotle.
Where do I say that "Marx focused on categories"? Marx focused on
reality, fluid and complex. But how can you get to change reality
without theorizing about it? And how can you theorize without
categories or general concepts -- or whatever you wish to call them in
your private terminology?
