A reading list for Anthony

snedeker snedeker at SPAMconcentric.net
Fri Nov 24 14:38:56 MST 2000



I agree. this is not an either or or question. industrial production and
plantation production were both contributing to capital accumulation at the
same time, not to mention the slave trade.Marx does mention these processes.
he could have said more about the slave trade and the plantation economy. we
might also mention Michael Perelman's analysis of primitive acumulation in
his THE INVENTION OF CAPITALISM.
----- Original Message -----
From: Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx <xxxxxxxx at xxxxxxx.xxx>
To: <marxism at lists.panix.com>
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2000 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: A reading list for Anthony


>
>
> Richard Fidler wrote:
>
> > >His 1977 article was a seminal critique of
> > >the "development/underdevelopment" theoreticians such as >Frank,
Wallerstein and
> > >(to some degree) Sweezy, in which he contrasted the >trade-centred view
of
> > >capitalist development held by the "underdevelopment" theorists >to
Marx's focus
> > >on changes in the internal class structure of a social formation.
>
> Hi Richard! Can we *cite* to have a more productive debate here ? There is
no such
> an antagonism between "trade centered views of capitalism" and Marx's
"focus on
> internal class relations". This is a false dichotomy created by Brenner.
They
> develop dialectically, not antagonistically. After all, we are talking
about
> European capitalist/slave trade (colonialism), whose very existence was
> *interelated* with capitalist social relations.Evidently, British colonial
> administrators were part of the capitalist British empire who expropriated
Africans
> from their land and forced them to work in plantations in the South. The
> *coexistence* of slavery with free labor was not antagonistic to
capitalism. It
> stood at the heart of it. The whole history of capitalism is a history of
coercion,
> expropriation and assimilation as Marx puts it Capital (the so called
primitive
> accumulation). Brennner's analysis of British capitalism contradicts Marx
in such a
> high degree that his logical conclusion leads us to the Berstenian view of
efficacy
> of capitalism via imperialism.
>
>
> Furthermore, W is not a technically a development/ underdevelopment
theorist. I am
> saying this because he is not, according to the classification done by
Brewer
> (_Marxist Theories of Imperialism_), an underdevelopment theorist.  He has
very many
> disagreements with Frank, as his review article on Frank's _Reorient_ in
the recent
> publication of _Review_ suggests.  Class conflict and struggles are all
there in
> Wallerstein's _The Modern World System I & II_:
>
>
> "Brenner admits that French landlords might have wished  to "consolodate
holdings"
> as much as their English conferers. But alas they coud not! for if in
England the
> laws permitted the landlord  to"raise rents or fines to impossible levels
and thus
> evict the small tenant, in France they might instead have had  "to buy up
countless
> small peasent holdings in order to amass  a consolidate unit".This, we are
led to
> infer, was an impossible  burden on French protocapitalist landlord. But
we have
> seen that buying up proportie,. far from being implausable, was a prime
method of
> concentration both in England and in France.Indeed, Brenner implicitly
admits it
> when he says that in France. "througout the early modern period, many
peasents were
> indeed forced deeply into debt and were ultimatetly obliged  to seel their
> holdings". If so, then who bought these holdings? Brenner concludes that
at the end
> of the 17 th century "some 40-50 percent of the cultivated land was still
in peasent
> possesion " in France, but "no more than 25-30 percent in England". What,
however,
> was the percentage in Northen France? (p.90).
>
> "What then  of the argument Brenner puts forward (and he is not alone)
that it was "
> the predominance of petty property ownership in France in the early modern
period
> which ensured long-term agricultural backwardness". We have suggested our
scepticism
> about both assumptions--the predominance of petty proprietorship (not true
of
> Northen France) and the agricultural backwardness of France relative to
England
> (doubtfually true of northen france, at least up to 1750) (p.89).
>
>
> --
>
> Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx
> PhD Student
> Department of Political Science
> SUNY at Albany
> Nelson A. Rockefeller College
> 135 Western Ave.; Milne 102
> Albany, NY 12222
>
>
>
> _____NetZero Free Internet Access and Email______
>    http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
>








More information about the Marxism mailing list