Explaining the difference between a mode of production (broader set of laws of motion and forms of exploitation at the level of an epoch) vs modes of exploitation (can be deployed in variety within a mode of production, a more archaic form of exploitation (slavery, feudalism) can be readily deployed within the “more advanced” capitalist mode of production, and this does not make it anything but the capitalist mode of production) to Pomeroy while he eats crumbs off the table in front of me
A common mistake of Marxists & historical materialists of the past and present (but not Marx) is to assume that capital is defined by its modes of exploitation, posting that the slave holding capitalists of the south & firms operating feudal relations in colonial territory, “pre-capitalist” forms of exploitation, were not themselves capitalist, or were in competition with the capitalist mode of production erroneously associated singularly with wage labor (supposedly its own mode of exploitation)
Source for all of this is Jairus Banaji’s fantastic Theory as History, primarily a text aiming to correct marxist historiography and misconceptions within, but it brings a lot of insight into the function and machinery of Capital along the way, by necessity. Dense but highly recommended
Phone 1% battery, the capitalist mode of production is defined by the ‘laws of motion’ outlined by Marx in the 3 volumes of Capital, by the production and accumulation of surplus-value, the revolutionization of the labor process, and the compulsion to increase the productivity of labor, among others such laws. Firms deploying of slave labor, or essentially feudal social relations in colonial spheres, does not contradict of complicate the overall reality of the mode of production and its laws