[PEN-L:11669] RE: binary passions

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> Max Sawicky <sawicky@xxxxxxxxxx> 09/24/99 06:54PM >>>
The fact that the 'money' originated
in plunder is irrelevant; while horrible, Louis,
plunder is not the essence of the process.

((((((((((((

Charles: Maybe if we substitute the word "exploited surplus value" for "plundered", you can see how a scientific Marxist understanding of this factor enters in. The gold was not snatched by the hands of the Spanish from the ground. It used Indian miners to do the labor, and then extracted surplus value from those workers

(((((((((((((

Max:
I don't think my argument hinges on
neocon-versus-marxian economics.
I'd be interested in economic refutations of
it, rather than accusations that I don't think
colonialism was horrible to its victims, or that
Israel is a sub-imperialism.

(((((((((((

Charles: I am not saying you don't say colonialism is horrible. I am saying a classical, a,b,c Marxist POLITICALECONOMIC, right out of the early chapters of capital, a counterargument to yours starts out by noting plunder means there was extraction ( is that a word less leaning on morality ?) of SURPLUS VALUE from the Indian workers in the gold and silver mines.  If you presume a Marxist approach , for the sake of argument, isn't this an economic counterargument ?

((((((((

Max:
I'll repeat that I don't think this disables the
core argument that colonialism was the primary
motive force in the rise of capitalism.
Just a piece of it.

(((((((((

Charles: Well, yea. What's our disagreement here ? Sounds like we agree ?

CB