Charles Brown cbrown at michiganlegal.org
Wed Oct 12 10:00:47 MDT 2005

Exactly, exists only in its "pure" form, most advanced form, in a few
countries-- absolutely correct, but this is what we expect.  Was Russia, per
se, with its backward relations of agricultural production, with its the
greatest part of its population trapped in "archaic" rural relations,
capitalist?  Of course it was-- it was exactly to the degree that it was
part of the uneven and combined development of capitalism.

But at the same time, look at the fetters that those archaic relations, part
and parcel of capitalism, placed on capitalist expansion itself. Look at how
the interpenetration of capital with landed estates, the interpenetration,
literally, of capitalists with the Russian latifundistas limited the
bourgeoisie, limited the "emancipation," dispossession of labor.


 With respect to the primitive accumulation of capital, in the concrete era
of the originating primitive accumulation, the rosy dawn of the era of
capitalist production, au contraire, the archaic relations retrofitted with
the new slavery and colonialism did not fetter, but supercharged capitalist
expansion itself.

 Even after the rosy dawn, for example, the slavocrats were the dominant
ruling class sector of the U.S. system at its beginnings. This signalized
the climax of the archaic slave form's dominance.

More information about the Marxism mailing list