CharlesB at SPAMCNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us
Thu Nov 2 14:58:52 MST 2000
>>> hoov at freenet.tlh.fl.us 11/02/00 05:17PM >>>
> CB: Have any of these Marxists heard of or do they use the terms
> "colonialism" or "imperialism" ?
> CB: As to the origins of capitalist social relations, does he agree with Marx
> that slavery and colonialism were the chief momenta of the primitive
> accumulation of the capitalists , or not ?
Brenner (and those such as Elizabeth Dore & John Weeks with whom he shares
theoretical kinship) claim it no coincident that Marx devotes limited
space to discussion of colonies in first volume of _Capital_.
CB: This seems an error of quantity favored over quality. The logical import of Marx's
discussion ( which includes the chapter on "The Historical Tendency of Capitalist
Accumulation") goes the other way from the quantity of pages. Also, there is the issue
of audience. Marx is addressing mainly European workers, who are not as connected to
the colonialism as to their own place in the division of labor. Marx united theory
RB, et. al.,
hold that dependency breaks with Marx's method. In similar manner, Charles
Bettelheim argued that notion of capitalism developing primarily on basis
of exploitation of countries rather than on basis of exploitation of
proletariat is fundamental revision of Marx's method.
As for me, I've always taken Marx's discussion of relations between rich
and poor nations in Chapters 24&25 of first volume of _Capital_ to be
origin of dependency concept. And if M is implicit here, Lenin is
explicit in _Imperialism_ when he notes that there are nations that
own others, there are colonies that are owned, and that there exist
"diverse forms of dependent countries which, politically are independent,
but in fact are enmeshed in the net of financial and dipolomatic
In sum, capitalism developed on basis of exploitation of labor *and*
exploitation of countries. Michael Hoover
More information about the Marxism