Rentisticism and rentier bourgeoisie

Charles Brown CharlesB at SPAMCNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us
Mon Oct 30 09:56:11 MST 2000


Hello Nestor,


When you say:
>Under adequate conditions, the same goals can be obtained WITHOUT
>slavery. Slavery, serfdom, latifundiary ownership of particularly
>fertile tracts of land, are for this kind of "capitalism" simply
>means to _avoid_, and not to _promote_, accumulation. What we are
>facing in these formations is a _rentistic_ and, in this sense,
>deeply _antibourgeois_ ruling class. Thus, even though _of course_
>modern slavery cannot but, as anything else trapped in the net of the
>world market, become a "capitalist enterprise", it is _not_
>capitalist in the full sense of the word, it is at best peripherical
>capitalist. But this is not a matter of location. I mean peripherical
>to the core set of social relations that define modern capitalism.


((((((((((

CB: Immediately I think of the leading role of the rentier class in capitalism 2000,
and wonder why rentisticism contradicts capitalist accumulation.








More information about the Marxism mailing list