Marx’s Theory of Primitive Accumulation

[Martin Blank]

http://homepages.uel.ac.uk/M.DeAngelis/PRIMACCA.htm

I was recommended this article by a comrade of mine after a recent talk about corporatism and the corporate welfare state. I found the thesis presented by DeAngelis in this paper to be in line with my own thoughts on the subject, and I was wondering what people on here think about it.

[Sir Comradical]

Basically, Adam Smith's take on the process was that it occurred more or less in a peaceful manner. Some people decided to save their money and become successful capitalists while others preferred to become wage-labourers. Marx refutes this idea by pointing out the history of the industrial revolution and the role the state played in siding with the bourgeoisie, forcing people off the land and banning 'combinations' of workers under laws of treason, just to name a few. Then there's the entire imperialist project, so India was Britain's source of raw materials, it involved imposing heavy taxes on farmers who grew food and pushing them into opium production (leading to famines) so they could sell something of value to the Chinese. Basically, the original accumulation of capital was (1) Extremely violent and (2) Directed by the state.

David Harvey has a wonderful audio lecture on this topic - it's Class 12.
http://davidharvey.org/reading-capital/

Or you can just read Chapter 26 of Volume 1...

[Martin Blank]

Basically, Adam Smith's take on the process was that it occurred more or less in a peaceful manner. Some people decided to save their money and become successful capitalists while others preferred to become wage-labourers. Marx refutes this idea by pointing out the history of the industrial revolution and the role the state played in siding with the bourgeoisie, forcing people off the land and banning 'combinations' of workers under laws of treason, just to name a few. Then there's the entire imperialist project, so India was Britain's source of raw materials, it involved imposing heavy taxes on farmers who grew food and pushing them into opium production (leading to famines) so they could sell something of value to the Chinese. Basically, the original accumulation of capital was (1) Extremely violent and (2) Directed by the state.

David Harvey has a wonderful audio lecture on this topic - it's Class 12.
http://davidharvey.org/reading-capital/

Or you can just read Chapter 26 of Volume 1...

I understand what primitive accumulation is about, comrade. That's not the issue. My reason for posting this here is that DeAngelis is arguing that primitive accumulation is not a phenomenon solely specific to the early development of capitalism, but rather is something that occurs when capitalism can no longer expand through productive accumulation (accumulation through the process of production). I happen to agree with DeAngelis' argument -- in fact, it was a conclusion I came to independently of his argument, based on my own readings of Marx. I wanted to know if other comrades here agree (or disagree) with this argument and why (or why not).

[Sir Comradical]

I understand what primitive accumulation is about, comrade. That's not the issue. My reason for posting this here is that DeAngelis is arguing that primitive accumulation is not a phenomenon solely specific to the early development of capitalism, but rather is something that occurs when capitalism can no longer expand through productive accumulation (accumulation through the process of production). I happen to agree with DeAngelis' argument -- in fact, it was a conclusion I came to independently of his argument, based on my own readings of Marx. I wanted to know if other comrades here agree (or disagree) with this argument and why (or why not).

Sorry, I saw the end part which asks what we think about it and kind of got carried away. I'm going to have to print that out and give it a read on the train.

[Martin Blank]

Sorry, I saw the end part which asks what we think about it and kind of got carried away. I'm going to have to print that out and give it a read on the train.

No problem. I've done that, too. It's thought-provoking and well worth the effort, IMO.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I get the feeling that De Angelis merely couldn't cough up Harvey's term to describe "the continuity of primitive accumulation and its fundamental persistence in mature capitalist economies."

Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

[I also think Harvey is broader than De Angelis in describing all this.]

[Martin Blank]

I get the feeling that De Angelis merely couldn't cough up Harvey's term to describe "the continuity of primitive accumulation and its fundamental persistence in mature capitalist economies."

Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

[I also think Harvey is broader than De Angelis in describing all this.]

Repetition, overlapping and explaining the same subject to various degrees -- isn't that the normal modus operandi of academics? ;)

Once I have this introductory article on dialectics done in the next couple days, I'll read Harvey's paper.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Repetition, overlapping and explaining the same subject to various degrees -- isn't that the normal modus operandi of academics? ;)

Once I have this introductory article on dialectics done in the next couple days, I'll read Harvey's paper.

That's a video on Capital and not a paper. The "paper" was written in 2003-2005 as part of his work The New Imperialism:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=N3VZWhA-OhoC&dq=harvey+new+imperialism&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=3_mOTMGwD8GblgegtJzJAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAw