******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
On 8/19/18 2:59 PM, Ralph Johansen via Marxism wrote:
We're talking past each other as I see it, mainly because there is confusion between two different concepts, primitive accumulation and origins of capitalism. Or you conflate them.
Except that I was referring specifically to what Jeremias Zevi wrote. Maybe you missed his message that included this:
England's "primitive accumulation" was the original accumulation of capital (not the original accumulation of property, given that Marx himself noted that property is always a political relationship, and property long pre-existed capitalism), but that in order to develop control over surplus value, capital needed to rule labour-power, which itself is a process.
As I pointed out in my reply, this understanding of primitive accumulation is limited to the Brennerites and that part of Capital that deals with the enclosure acts, etc. If they at least tried to explain why Marx went wrong by associating primitive accumulation with slavery and colonialism in chapter 31 of V. 1 of Capital, I'd take them more seriously. But to sweep it under the rug is really quite irresponsible.
_________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
