Accumulation by Dispossession.....

[RadioRaheem84]

David Harvey's adage to primitive accumulation. Is it a valid thesis?

Seems like it is and it certainly kills the sweatshop arguments made by right libertarians.

Discuss.

[Zanthorus]

I'm not overly familiar with Harvey's original work in the field of Marxist political economy. On wikipedia it appears that 'accumulation by dispossesion' basically means the privatisation of state assets. I don't really see what this has to do with the primitive accumulation of capital. Although superficially it may resemble the expropriation of the peasantry from the commons land, the primitive accumulation of capital broke up the system of petty family production and transformed the peasantry into wage-labourers. Privatisation of assets may make living conditions worse for the working-class, but it doesn't change their class position. They were wage-labourers to begin with.

[Ligeia]

So anybody's got another opinion on this topic?



Seems like it is and it certainly kills the sweatshop arguments made by right libertarians.

Which sweatshop argument? And how does it kill it?

[RadioRaheem84]

That if these sweatshops weren't there, the people would starve because they would have no jobs. They would go back to living in the woods or crime or prostitution.

Right Libertarians ignore the fact that people were disposed of the means of production, first time with primitive accumulation and a second time under accumulation by dispossession.

They start at the point in which the corporation arrives and give them jobs.

It's similar to how when a Wal-Mart comes in, buys land, disposes people from their property and then runs the other companies out of business. Well then the only other choice besides moving is working for Wal Mart.

A Right Libertarian argument would be that if Wal Mart was not there the people would starve and resort to crime and other nefarious things.

Right Libertarian never examine the root causes.

Watch Penn and Teller's Bullshit episode on sweatshops.

It is the most vile thing I have seen on a show that claims to be anti-establishment.

Truly Bullshit.

[Widerstand]

That if these sweatshops weren't there, the people would starve because they would have no jobs. They would go back to living in the woods or crime or prostitution.

Frankly, that argument can easily be dismantled by a quick look at Naomi Klein's No Logo, any ILO report on sweatshops, etc.

[ZeroNowhere]

There was some good discussion on this here (http://libcom.org/forums/theory/crisis-rent-david-harvey-02052008). For the record, I more or less agree with the user 'mikus'.

[RadioRaheem84]

Frankly, that argument can easily be dismantled by a quick look at Naomi Klein's No Logo, any ILO report on sweatshops, etc.

True, but I think that the libertarian argument is that if those sweatshops weren't there things would be much worse.

Arguments in favor include things like in the long run, a sweatshop will develop the area around it.

I remember reading one article in which the McDonalds contribute to higher standards among the poorer restaurants in the area, i.e. that poor restaurants have to keep up with sanitary standards in order to compete, there by promoting higher quality service and food.

I mean it's topsy turvy logic that stems from the belief that the playing field is all leveled and that the small business can compete with a conglomerate.

[RadioRaheem84]

There was some good discussion on this here (http://libcom.org/forums/theory/crisis-rent-david-harvey-02052008). For the record, I more or less agree with the user 'mikus'.

Very interesting. How about we continue that discussion here and get other comrades views, no?

[Widerstand]

True, but I think that the libertarian argument is that if those sweatshops weren't there things would be much worse.

Free trade zones have always destroyed domestic business in the area. Free trade zones are usually exempt from a nation's labor laws and operate on a semi-sovereign law level. They are privatized mini-states, which don't have to follow work and tax standards of the rest of the country. This is how they are supposed to work, the more liberal laws are supposed to attract investors.



Arguments in favor include things like in the long run, a sweatshop will develop the area around it.

Which is sheer bullshit... Because no education is needed to work in sweatshops, none is provided, ergo no knowledge is transfered, no development can set in. Again, there are some articles, which I'm too lazy to dig out, but they are available online IIRC, by the ILO, the UN's labor monitoring organ, heavily criticizing the IMF's sweatshop policy, also under the aspect of development (actually, the free trade zones lead to regress in the adjacent areas). The UN's organs criticizing each other is quite absurd to begin with, but anyway...

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'm not overly familiar with Harvey's original work in the field of Marxist political economy. On wikipedia it appears that 'accumulation by dispossesion' basically means the privatisation of state assets. I don't really see what this has to do with the primitive accumulation of capital. Although superficially it may resemble the expropriation of the peasantry from the commons land, the primitive accumulation of capital broke up the system of petty family production and transformed the peasantry into wage-labourers. Privatisation of assets may make living conditions worse for the working-class, but it doesn't change their class position. They were wage-labourers to begin with.

It's only the first point.

There's more:

1) "Dispossession of assets (raiding of pension funds and their decimation by stock and corporate collapses) by credit and stock manipulations" - and also by governments (raids on unemployment insurance and public pensions).

2) "State redistributions can be in the form of Contracts given to power groups: for large infrastructures, services paid by the State and carried by private enterprise, defense developments, research projects. One would have to find out if those Contracts serve public good in a fair way or if they sustain a power structure. Also the granting of licences for all sorts of State sanctioned activities can turn out as unfair wealth distribution. Another important redistribution channel is by State supported financing of private enterprise activities" - read, bailouts.

[Widerstand]

It's only the first point.

There's more:

1) "Dispossession of assets (raiding of pension funds and their decimation by stock and corporate collapses) by credit and stock manipulations" - and also by governments (raids on unemployment insurance and public pensions).

2) "State redistributions can be in the form of Contracts given to power groups: for large infrastructures, services paid by the State and carried by private enterprise, defense developments, research projects. One would have to find out if those Contracts serve public good in a fair way or if they sustain a power structure. Also the granting of licences for all sorts of State sanctioned activities can turn out as unfair wealth distribution. Another important redistribution channel is by State supported financing of private enterprise activities" - read, bailouts.

So basically "Dispossession of assets" = "austerity measures to get money for bank bail outs"?

[blake 3:17]

By "accumulation by dispossession" you mean stealing people's land?

Too many Marxists have thought that bringing capitalist social relations to 'backwards' peoples was a step in the right direction. The indigenous peoples of the Americas and the Palestinian people have shown us otherwise.

[Die Neue Zeit]

So basically "Dispossession of assets" = "austerity measures to get money for bank bail outs"?

They're separate things, but can be joined at times. What used to be Unemployment Insurance where I am has been raided by liberal or conservative federal governments for years, long before this crisis.

[RadioRaheem84]

Eastern European impoverishment by the West is a clear cut example of accumulation by dispossession.