Forwarded from Anthony (yeomanry)

Louis Proyect lnp3 at panix.com
Mon Sep 8 12:53:35 MDT 2003


From: Louis Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com>  Date: Mon, 08
Sep 2003 13:42:56 -0400) for recognizing my point,
"Good point. However, I still believe that the small,
self-husbanding farm has not been adequately theorized
by Marxism."

I completely agree with you that this ... "has not
been adaquately theorized by Marxism."

I think is one of the salient points missing.

I don't have time to go into my views on the subject
now, but will make two small points about the idea
that Kulifkoff posits that sees "yeomanry as a kind of
production that sits in-between the capitalist and
noncapitalist world."

First, while the 'yeomanry' in North America was an
extension of the English yeomanry historically, it was
quite different. First in terms of social and class
relations, the 'new yeomanry' in America were united
in stealing virgin land from the indigenous peoples of
America with the oppresing classes in England and
America. Secondly because of the fact that this land
was extraordinarily productive, given the fact that it
had never been subjected to intensive agriculture (or
any agriculture often).

In my opinion the 'new yeomanry' was a thouroughly
capitalist petty bourgeoisie, unlike the old yeomanry.

Second, it is just as easy to see 'yeomanry' as
transitional to capitalism, as it is to see slavery as
transitional to slavery. Wouldn't you agree?

All the best, Anthony


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.



More information about the Marxism mailing list