Re: Re: the mita

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jim Devine:
>I'm not the one who invented the term. So you'll have to explain why it
>makes no sense. To me, it expresses the fact that the pure cases of theory
>(proletarian, non-proletarian) often don't exist in pure form in empirical
>and historical reality. We often see mixed forms, as when Trotsky, in his
>HISTORY OF THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION, argues that Russia had an unevenly
>developing combination of capitalism and pre-capitalist social relations.

Russia and colonial Peru had nothing in common. If an army had invaded
Russia in the 15th century, destroyed the Czardom and pressed the lower
ranks of society into gang labor working 14 hours a day to produce
commodities for the world market, then we might be in the same ballpark.
What took place in Latin America has to be examined on its own terms, not
invoking Marx on mercantilism or Trotsky on combined and uneven
development. When I file my final post on Brenner/Wood at the end of the
week, it should be obvious that there was no parallel for what took place
in Latin America during the 17th to 19th centuries. It has to be examined
on its own terms. Brenner and Wood never spend one word describing the
reality of this world. It is not feudalism, nor is it mercantile capitalism.


Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/