Louis Proyect wrote:
> The question that needs addressing is not how and why feudalism in Europe
> evolved into capitalism,


> The problem for Marxists is how to evaluate the spread of EUROPEAN
> capitalism into NON-EUROPEAN pre-capitalist societies.

  These two statements amount to much the same thing: the evolution of
the modes of production. That evolution was (as Marx and Jim D have
argued) from both internal and external causes. The export of capital &
capitalism from England
can be traced to the usual causes in the classic theory of imperialism;
a way of avoiding confrontation with
the working class at home, the need to cheapen constant capital because
of the falling profit rate and need to create markets (i.e. realize
surplus value.) Pre-capitalist societies like feudalism or
"asiatic"/"tributary" modes remained stagnant because of low
productivity. The surplus that was created, through extra-economic
coercion, was squandered by the ruling class on temples, palaces and
churches instead of being plowed back into creating more productive
capacity. Thus the relations of production acted as a fetter on the
productive forces. This is  where Brenner comes in I think-explaining
how the whole process of capitalist capital accumulation got going in
the first place. I don't see why one couldn't combine the rape of the
colonies and changing relations of production internally in an
explanation. Dissolution of pre-capitalist formations can be
explained by the greater productive capacity of capitalism and the class
struggle of the bourgeoise against landowners.
  Interestingly, Bettelheim argues that capitalism leads to the
simultaneous preservation and destruction of pre-capitalist modes.
  Re-reading Brenner's NLR 'critique of neo-smithian approaches' paper
last night, I was struck by the theoretical nature of the argument. Not
too much about agriculture in England. He argues that Sweezy,
Wallerstein and Frank are in essence repeating Smith's argument that the
growth of international capitalism is based on the growth of the int'l
division of labor and trade relations but failed to analyze the class
basis of the spread of K. The upshot is that the solution for 3rd world
countries is autarky and not socialism. I find Brenner quite convincing.

Sam Pawlett


Reply via email to