I wrote:
> >Brenner has a specific theory of capitalism that Anderson doesn't address
> >in the quote above. As I understand Brenner, he's would agree with Marx
> >that capitalism arose when different elements "systematically combined in
> >England at the end of the 17th century." But not being a postmodernist, he
> >_prioritizes_ the various elements, arguing that class relations
> >(specifically, proletarianization) were the most crucial part of the mix.
> >With that, the pieces can fall into place.
Louis writes:
>The problem is the foundation of his entire edifice, British agriculture of
>the 15th century, is unsound. As many scholars have pointed out, similar
>class relations existed throughout the world. I cited Spain in my reply to
>Wood. Pomeranz cites similar class relations in China. And so on.
_Of course_, proletarianization occurred in a lot of places. In fact, it
occurred in ancient Rome, from whence the word "proletariat" comes.
The thing is that unlike with markets, there's a "critical mass" for
proletarianization: if the proletariat is only a small percentage of the
work force, it tends to stay that way:
1. If a wage-labor class exists in a society that's dominated by slavery
(as in ancient Rome or the antebellum US South, with different kinds of
slavery), the growth of proletarianization is squelched: slave ownership is
more profitable, while the products of slaves are typically cheaper. Wage
laborers tend to be overseers and the like, so that their status is
dependent on the slave mode of production.
2. If it's easy to force workers to work -- as under serfdom -- then the
demand for free laborers will be nil. Feudal guilds tend to squelch
proletarianization, because they replace it with paternalistic worker
organizations that monopolize trades.
3. If it's really easy to set up one's own farm, as for awhile in the 19th
century in the US, then workers won't put up with proletarianization (so
that in-migration needs to be encouraged). Etc.
When Marx -- and I presume, Brenner -- talks about proletarianization as
the central part of the definition of capitalism, it seems that he's
referring to a coherent whole that allows for and encourages extended
reproduction (accumulation), not just of commodities but of the
proletariat. That means a very large chunk of society. (Capitalism still
hasn't conquered all of society, but it is definitely the dominant mode of
production.)
We've gone through this before. Perhaps Michael will tell us not to
continue the current thread.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine "Segui il
tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.)
-- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
