[Marxism] Capitalists, not bourgeois

rrubinelli rrubinelli at earthlink.net
Mon Oct 24 18:40:41 MDT 2005


I mean exactly what I said, Lou.  If you look at the development, or
lack thereof, of Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru you see exactly where and how
the encomienda system, the hacienda system in Ecuador were the drags on
the economic development of the country.

If you look at the Philippines, its clear how the sugar, and hemp
plantations worked against the development of  a "modern" capitalism.

There is no doubt that these economies and countries supplied
commodities to the world market, but I have never maintained anything
different-- I maintained that capital absorbed these "antecedent" forms,
embedded itself in them, maybe ensnared itself on its commond bond of
private property.  I think I've made all of that fairly clear in earlier
posts, and  made it clear repeatedly, that capital maintains these
backward, reactionary forms as a bulwark against any threat to private
property.

There was never any possibility that "native industry" would never
spring up because the US, Europe, didn't want the competition?  Yes and
no.  The inhibiting factor was the plantation, hacienda, indentured
labor system, which pre-existed US and European capitalism, which were
imposed by the Spanish colonialists, which strangled the home market in
its cradle, systems which themselves waged continued battles against
their  own "liberal" developing bourgeoisie in Ecuador, Bolivia, Peru-- 
and won them independent of US or European intervention.

The hacienda system survived in Ecuador until 1964 and its legacy, and
the legacy of those pre-existing relations of land and labor throughout
Ecuador, Bolivia, Peru, have made land reform in Latin America a
repeated failure.

And no, I am not advocating the "development" of "modern" capitalism in
LA.  This, this backwardness is the development modern capitalism allows
and bestows on Latin America.  I think I've made that clear also.


rr

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Louis Proyect" <lnp3 at panix.com>
To: "Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition"
<marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Capitalists, not bourgeois


> What do you mean that haciendas do not contain the fundamental social
> relation of capital. The entire Latin American economy for most of the
past
> 500 years has revolved around exactly such institutions. Along with
mining,
> countries such as Peru, Ecuador, Brazil, Colombia and Bolivia supplied
raw
> materials for the industrial economies of Western Europe and the
United
> States. These systems fulfilled an imperative for the world capitalist
> system, namely a dependable and cheap source of tin, copper, rubber,
> coffee, sugar, cotton, timber, etc. for manufacturing finished
products.
> There was never any possibility that native industry would spring up
for
> the obvious reason that Europe and the USA did not want competition.
The
> plantation and mine owners constituted a reactionary bloc in Latin
America
> that had to be confronted in order for development to take place.
Here's
> what I wrote about Cuba in this context:
>





More information about the Marxism mailing list