******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ********************
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*****************************************************************
On 8/15/18 11:29 PM, Ralph Johansen via Marxism wrote:
We've been down this path before. Brenner's focus is on how capitalism
ORIGINATED, its speciated emergence and conception in a form and in
conditions which without human design or intention produced it as the
dominant form of production; in a specific form and locale, as a
specific form of the organization of production, and not in all the
forms of accumulation which contributed to these origins and their
development in all sorts of places around the globe.
I know how Brenner makes his case. I have written about lease farming
and all that stuff here:
https://louisproyect.org/2007/06/12/british-farming-resisted-mechanization-until-the-1850s/
https://louisproyect.org/2007/06/21/british-farming-and-market-imperatives/
https://louisproyect.org/2016/01/27/town-and-tawney/
https://louisproyect.org/2007/07/04/turnips-and-the-transition-to-capitalism/
https://louisproyect.org/2007/07/05/more-on-the-turnip/
But to repeat. Dimmock claims that Marx himself was a Political Marxist.
I find it deeply problematic that he does not point to the passages in
Capital and Grundrisse that comes close to Brenner's analysis. The
omissions are striking, not just about slavery, etc. But about the role
of merchant capital (East India Company.) Brenner's thesis is nakedly
Eurocentric, Anglocentric actually. As if lease farming in the 15th
century led inexorably to the sun never setting on the British Empire.
_________________________________________________________
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at:
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
