I disagree. I think the information developed overall in the previous exchange shows that productivity was not at all a function of farm size in England; that the "productivity" in France was a product of more intensive cultivation of the land by more labor, not reduction in labor; that the advance in productivity in English agriculture was a function of social relations of production and not farm size. Allen, I also think it is clear, conflates large-scale with capitalist, and misses the criticality of the data he himself produces.
We can point to many points of convergence, or similarity, between early conditions of industrial capitalist production, and even agricultural capitalist production, and fully developed slave-based production. Indeed the discussions during the early history of the just formed US, the "smytchka" of the colonies, is full of comparisons and "similarities" of the conditions of the wage workers and the conditions of the slave laborers... with those in the soon to be North declaiming, in the interests of unity (and property, of course) "who are we to point a finger at the treatment of the slaves, when wage workers are suffer so similarly?" Of course, soon after the war of 1812, the exploiters "smytchka" starts breaking down, and by 1820, it's battle, compromise, battle again. Move the discussion of improvement forward, for the US, and you will see where Jefferson's, or the plantation "productivity," ends, it runs up against its limits, limits that at the same time prevent it, based on internal dynamics, internal class relations, from transforming itself into modern agricultural production units. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Louis Proyect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2007 12:41 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] What Marx meant by primitive accumulation > sartesian wrote: > > >However (again!), the record of plantation production in the US-- > >"capital" investment, percent of acreage sequestered vs.cultivated, > >etc-- shows "improvement" had not achieved the status of compulsory > >practicce. The Southern economy as a whole exhibits this same > >lassitude. Compare the expansion, volumes, and technical sophistication > >of Southern railroads vs. Northern railroads in the period up to and > >including the US Civil War. > > > > > > > But Jefferson's plantation employed the same amount of technology as did > Great Britain. The article about British farming productivity rates that > I posted a couple of weeks ago makes clear that improvements in the 18th > century were a function of farm size not machinery. There is basically > no difference between Jefferson's plantation and a large British farm in > this period other than the fact that one used wage labor and the other > used slaves. >
