If Brenner makes a mistake of a one-sided interpretation, why does that not allow both parts to be at work.
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 07:22:13PM -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: > > I will get into more depth on this later on, but the basic problem is > that Robert Brenner confines "primitive accumulation" to the English > countryside. This is not how Marx saw it. It is really about > separating peasants from the means of reproduction and forcing them > to become workers. If there was a surplus of workers, wage labor was > the best way to exploit them. If there was a shortage, then slavery > or other forms of bondage would work. This is the crux of the > difference between Norwich in the 16th century and Potosi. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu michaelperelman.wordpress.com
