Michael, I'm not sure you are incorrect as I think the problem hinges on the correct Marx text. With the "and" it looks like peasants are included, without the "and" it looks like large capitalists are gobbling up the small ones who are involved in production in their own enterprises. Without the "and" the whole passage doesn't seem very significant and this is perhaps what you are now picking up in saying the citation is not terribly important. For those interested, *The Commoner*, at www.commoner.org.uk as an online publication, has a whole issue on Enclosures, including a reprint of some of Michael's book. Paul ************************************************************************ Paul Zarembka, editor, RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY at ********************* http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka Michael Perelman <michael@ECST.CSUCHICO.EDU> said, on 01/09/02: >Paul, thanks for pointing out the error in my citation. I am not sure >that I would say that I considered it terribily important, just a shred of >evidence -- an perhaps one based on an incorrect translation. >Paul Zarembka wrote: >> >> Perelman's *The Invention of Capitalism*, p. 31, bottom, considers the >> passage important (he cites p. 348, not 349, 1981 Vintage) for indicating >> the on-going character of 'primitive accumulation' (I don't agree, but is >> another matter, after we get past to the correct text). >> >-- >Michael Perelman >Economics Department >California State University >Chico, CA 95929 >Tel. 530-898-5321 >E-Mail michael@ecst.csuchico.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Feb 02 2002 - 00:00:05 EST