But Brenner's and Wood's definition of capitalism is not the competition among commodity producers. Brenner's definition is the separation of the conditions of labor, and the laborer, from the means of labor and, initially, critically, the means of subsistence. It is a definition based on social relations, not of wealth, commerce, trade, the growth or decline of cities.
Competition among producers is most definitely derived from that definition. ----- Original Message ----- From: michael a. lebowitz To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 10:13 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] What Marx meant by primitive accumulation At 21:04 25/05/2007, Louis wrote: Keep in mind that Engels's schema in "Origins of the Family" defines capitalism as immediately following feudalism. He didn't come up with these stages on his own. They were shared by Marx. Was 16th and 17th century Holland "feudal"? If so, then the word has no use as a strict social science category. The problem I have with this is Marx's concluding footnote in Vol. I, Ch. 26, where he describes the Italian case as one in which the dissolution of serfdom [emancipation of the peasant] occurred before the peasant acquired a 'prescriptive right to the soil'. This is in contrast to the case elsewhere in Europe where peasants DID acquire that prescriptive right to the soil before the dissolution of serfdom. What that meant, then, is made clear at the opening of Ch. 27--- the disappearance of serfdom in England left as the the immense majority of the population 'free peasant proprietors, however much the feudal trappings might disguise their absolute ownership.' Ie., not feudalism but feudal forms. Thus, the necessity for the expropriation of those peasant proprietors. So, you can't call that feudalism if these are merely feudal trappings which are mystifying observers. Was it capitalism then? Or, was there an intermediate 'stage' in which peasant and craft commodity producers were numerically dominant but exploited by incipient capital in the form of merchant capital and money-lending capital which had not yet seized possession of production? This would be consistent with Richard's definition. In any event, while I taught about the period in the distant past, it's been years since I've followed the literature (except to recognise that the Brenner/Wood definition of capitalism as competition among commodity producers has little to do with Marx's definition of capitalism). I would say, though, that 'primitive accumulation' occurred in the Italian case--- in the sense of the assembling of an essential component of capitalism [producers separated from the land/means of production]; since there was no prescriptive right to the soil, though, they went directly to wage-labour without passing enclosures. I.e., I think it is important to distinguish between the essence of the process (the original accumulation of elements, i.e., the becoming of capital) and the contingent forms it took. michael Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Director, Programme in 'Transformative Practice and Human Development' Centro Internacional Miranda, P.H. Residencias Anauco Suites, Parque Central, final Av. Bolivar Caracas, Venezuela fax: 0212 5768274/0212 5777231 http//:centrointernacionalmiranda.gob.ve [EMAIL PROTECTED]
