>
>I agree with Maureen and Stephen E Philion -- not only about the
>interpretation of history but also about the political implications of
>'discovering' (proto-)capitalism before it emerged.
This is indeed an important problem, Yoshie. Yet for Marx the critique of capitalism did allow retrospective insight into the modes of production that had preceded it. So while Marx did not provide a teleological explanation for the emergence of capitalism, he was able to turn his critique of bourgeois Robinsonades, of rugged individualism, of the individual under capitalism free to amass wealth through means uncontrolled by the society into a sweeping historical critique of the bourgeoisie's precursors--the so called Oriental despot, the basileus and slave taker of ancient Greece, the rex and imperator of ancient Rome, the feudal lord of medieval Europe, none of whom yet achieved the clear expression of an ideology to justify and excuse this anti human and anti social conduct, this pro individual and anti social ideology and morality, this morality of immorality, this ethic of unethical conduct. Marx's critical anatomy of the (Robinsonade) man is thus key to the anatomy of the ape (previous historical ruling classes) in which we can now see the progressive tearing loose of the individual from social being.
See discussion in Lawrence Krader "Social Evolution and Social Revolution" Dialectical Anthropology, vol 1, no 2 (2/1976)
Yours, Rakesh