First we need to distinguish apples from oranges and whats from whats. Brenner is not defining capitalism. Brenner is searching for the changes in social relations that enable capitalism, that are essential to the development of capitalism, that are both necessary and sufficient. Brenner begins by analyzing the transition from feudalism to capitalism. He initially examines the demographic model, the Malthusian population crisis theory, finds it wanting, to say the least, since that theory in and of itself is not based on any fundamental changes in the social organization of production.
He also examines the "trade and commerce" theories, finding them equally inadequate, showing that in fact trade and commerce did not necessarily undermine the fedual order, did in fact not change the social relations of production. Same can and should be said about the "urban origin" of capitalism. These theories provide no accounting for the actual changes in social relations that precede the triumph of the industrial capital. Brenner is not simply following Dobbs against Sweezy. Brenner does not subscribe to the "petty producer" theory of the origin of capitalism. The common flaw in both Dobbs and Sweezy is that they assume that capitalism exists as a sort of homunculus bound inside the feudal systems. Capitalism exists always and everywhere in however deformed, diminished a state. Sweezy finds the big bang liberating the little man in the merchant as simultaneously the employer of wage labour. Dobbs finds it in the small producer, feeding on....trade, commerce, and other small producers.. In Wood's Origin, the argument builds upon Brenner's change in agricultural relations, the end of subsistence production on scales both small, the peasantry, and large, the feudal lord, to that of specialization production for exchange in order to purchase the means of subistence and the conditions of labor (i.e rent of land). Fundamentally, the point here is that the creation of the proletariat is an outcome, the result, of the new compulsion, the new necessity, the new economic imperative of production for exchange. That the social relation that defines the origin of capital first appears in agricultural production, and sinks its deepest roots into English agriculture, is recognized by Marx. Timing is everything. s.a. ----- Original Message ----- From: michael a. lebowitz To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 1:49 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] What Marx meant by primitive accumulation At 23:56 25/05/2007, sartesian wrote: 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. I apologise for entering a discussion that others have studied much more closely, but textually I'm not certain this is accurate. As a fluke, I happen to have a copy of Wood's 'Origin of Capitalism' (MR, 1999) here in Caracas. (It's a fluke because I had brought the book here from vancouver because a person who was to teach history of capitalism at the School of Planning asked if I had anything post-Dobb that he could read on the origins and the book was light.) And, as I vaguely recalled, her mantra is 'market imperative, market imperative, market imperative'. The devil made me do it--- the market made me do it. What? Everything--- it is the basis of the specific laws of motion of capitalism.. Marx's definition of capitalism has to do with the sale of labour-power to a capitalist. Wood, however, talks about 'agrarian capitalism' without initially talking about wage-labour. So, what does that leave of capitalism? She writes: 'But it is important to keep in mind that competitive pressures, and the new "laws of motion" that went with them, depended in the first instance not on the existence of a mass proletariat but on the existence of market-dependent tenant producers' (95). [The 'mass' is genuflection to Marx's concept as subsequent points indicate]. 'People could be market-dependent--- dependent on the market for the basic conditions of their self-reproduction--- without being completely dispossessed. To be market-dependent required only the loss of direct non-market access to the means of self-reproduction.... In other words, the specific dynamics of capitalism were already in place in English agriculture before the proletarianization of the work force' (95). So, the specific laws of motion of capital have nothing to do with the exploitation of workers as wage-labourers, the drive to increase the length and intensity of the workday, to divide and separate workers, the existence of a reserve army of unemployed that keeps exploitation at respectable levels, the tendency toward overproduction [the 'fundamental contradiction'] and what flows from the fact that surplus value [oops, what's that?] must be realised through the sale of commodities under conditions marked by exploitation of wage-labourers? Nope, the laws of motion come from competitive pressures, ie., from the market, which is to say that they are the laws of any market society [hello, Milton's definition of capitalism]. I'd say Sartesian has it backward in his point about what is derived from what in their work. As for Brenner/Wood, they are certainly welcome to use any definition they want of capitalism--- trying to pass it off as Marx's understanding of capitalism and its tendencies is another matter, though. 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]
