#meyerson

Historical materialism in one sense predicts uneven development as it is a property both of the logic of capital and the imperatives of class rule and social control. But the particular shape these imperatives take depends on the particulars of class struggle, particulars which include the particulars of history, ideology, geography. In America, the white race mode of social control was operative; in the Caribbean, it failed, requiring different forms of social control. As Allen discusses in Vol. Two (of "Inventing the White Race"), some Native American tribes offered structures (the presence of a cacique class) that could be used for purposes of colonial rule; others did not offer such usable structures and so instead were removed or exterminated. As briefly mentioned above, in the case of colonial rule in Ireland in the nineteenth century, national oppression could be the form of rule (with limited Catholic emancipation) in one case while racial oppression operated in Ulster. 'Culture' on a proper historical materialist account, is not the other of class but forms part of a fuller theorization of class rule in different contexts. In colonial contexts, the culture of the dominated is thus very important, partially determining both the forms of class rule - its mix of cooptation, marginalization, extermination - and its limits. [Cedric] Robinson's alternative of splitting off culture from class may be necessary in order to justify what I will argue is, contra Kelley's claim, a nationalist fiction. But in making culture autonomous, it almost has to play into the hands of 'the culture matters' theorists - from Moynihan to Huntington - who explain development and underdevelopment, violence, nonviolence, wealth and poverty as function of largely incommensurable cultures. It is thus more than a little ironic that Robin Kelley, who has been an untiring critic of the poverty theories, nevertheless accepts or appears to accept one of its central underlying premises - the autonomy of culture from class.