Perhaps I can open a discussion of primitive accumulation and see if there are any takers. I have read some of Michael Perelman's book "The Invention of Capitalism: Classical Political Economy and the Secret History of Primitive Accumulation". I notice on his p. 36 that he considers that Marx is referring to "primitive accumulation" in regard to "multiplication of the proletariat" within Part VII (p. 764, Vintage/Fowkes edition). However, that whole Part of *Capital* is discussing accumulation, not 'primitive' accumulation, and there is really no justification that I can see for saying that those pages are referring to primitive accumulation. Do any others on this list think that that "multiplication of the proletariat" in Part VII includes primitive accumulation? Michael's Chapter 2 seems to want to defend a broadening of the definition of primitive accumulation to any separation (before or after the establishment of the capitalist mode of production). But he fails to confront Marx's definition of primitive accumulation (pp. 874-75) which refers to "the pre-history of capital" (or "the pre-historic stage of capital" in the earlier English translation; the French is also worth consulting). Andre Gunder Frank chooses another route which is to refer to separation AFTER the establishment of the capitalist mode of production as "primary accumulation" so as to better keep our concepts clear (by keeping the usage of primitive accumulation to the historical situation Marx considers). Of course, the point is not to deny the importance separation from means of production. For myself, I would join with Rosa Luxemburg in emphasizing its importance to "accumulation of capital" (note the absence of the word "primitive"). Michael's usage, if I understand correctly, seems to follow Lenin's usage, while Luxemburg has it correct (altho she doesn't introduce a new concept as Frank does). How this problem affects Michael's reading of the Classicals, I don't know (he has a 35-page reference list, by the way, but little on Luxemburg I found except a comment or two which is not indexed). ---- Note: There is an interesting point regarding primitive accumulation I discovered within Marx's chapter on Simple Reproduction. The Fowkes translation (p. 714), as well as Engels' German 4th edition, refers to primitive in an manner which suggests separation from means of production. But the French edition (Marx's last) could not be so translated. It reads: "Ne fallait-il donc pas, la première fois qu'elle se présenta au marché du travail, que la classe capitaliste eût déjà accumulé par ses propres labeurs et ses propres épargnes des trésors qui la mettaient en état d'avancer les subsistances de l'ouvrier sous forme de monnaie? Provisoirement nous voulons bien accepter cette solution du problème, en nous réservant d'y regarder de plus près dans le chapitre sur las prétendue accumulation primitive." In other words, the reference in the Simple Reproduction chapter in Marx's own last edition refers to the PREREQUISITE, the background, for the separation. I suspect the Marx was sharpening up his wording by the time he got to the French edition (the French passage above is also a longer one than the standard passages we are familiar with). Happy New Year to all. Paul *********************************************************************** Paul Zarembka, editor, RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY at ******************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jan 31 2001 - 00:00:03 EST