>No one -- including Brenner & Wood -- says that the rise of
>capitalism _preceded_ colonialism and slavery -- the conquest of the
>so-called New World began in 1492, and the drawn-out process of class
>conflicts & class formations that Wood, Brenner, etc. discuss
>occurred, _not in the style of linear Progress_, between the 15th &
>18th centuries (the main point being differential outcomes of the
>General Crisis in _the 17th century_, with many nations still trapped
>in what is called the Malthusian pattern while England & Holland
>escaping the crisis _relatively_ unscathed); to repeat, Wood never
>makes an argument that "tenant farming in rural England _preceded_
>colonialism and slavery" which you attribute to her. Did Ricardo say
>so? If he did, I missed it (I don't read all his posts). Anyhow,
>why trust his interpretation, when he has been one of the most
>unashamed "Eurocentrists" on this list?
Yoshie, this is very frustrating. You really have to sit down and read
Wood's book. Don't rely on me. Don't rely on Ricardo. What you will find is
the following. Agrarian capitalism evolved in the 15th century. It is not
industrial capitalism but it is capitalism nonetheless. She is so insistent
that this is the real thing that it DOES NOT MATTER that there is no wage
labor, a key element in Dobb's definition of capitalism. Here, let her
speak for herself:
Was Agrarian Capitalism Really Capitalist?
We should pause here to emphasize two major points. First, it was not
merchants or manufacturers who were driving the process that propelled the
early development of capitalism. The transfor- mation of social property
relations was firmly rooted in the countryside, and the transformation of
English trade and indus- try was result more than cause of England’s
transition to capital- ism. Merchants could function perfectly well within
non-capitalist systems. They prospered, for example, in the con- text of
European feudalism, where they profited not only from the autonomy of
cities but also from the fragmentation of markets and the opportunity to
conduct transactions between one market and another.
Secondly, and even more fundamentally, the term "agrarian capitalism" has
so far been used without placing wage labor at its core, although by any
definition wage labor is central to capital- ism. This requires some
explanation.
It should be said that many tenants did employ wage labor, so much so that
the triad identified by Marx and others—landlords living on capitalist
ground rent, capitalist tenants living on profit, and laborers living on
wages—has been regarded by many as the defining characteristic of agrarian
relations in England. And so it was, at least in those parts of the
country, particularly the east and southeast, most noted for their
agricultural productivity. In fact, the new economic pressures, the
competitive pressures that drove unproductive farmers to the wall, were a
major factor in polarizing the agrarian population into larger landholders
and propertyless wage laborers, promoting the agrarian triad. And, of
course, the pressures to increase productivity made themselves felt in the
intensified exploitation of wage labor.
===
This thing called agrarian capitalism preceded industrial capitalism by
CENTURIES. It also preceded colonialism and slavery. It was a product of
the decline of feudalism in England of the late 15th century, as Brenner
himself made clear. It precedes the "discovery" of America. It precedes the
forays into Africa to seize slave labor.
Furthermore, the raids into Africa and the transportation of people in
chains to pick cotton or sugar cane WAS NOT CAPITALISM. That fell into the
category of NONCAPITALIST COMMERCE, or what she calls "buying cheap and
selling dear."
Please read her book. There is one other request I have. Let's keep this
debate going on PEN-L. There seems to be ZERO interest on the Marxism list
on the subject, except for Mine who can barely contain her disgust. I have
a much higher tolerance myself but would like to prevent 5 or 6 posts a day
being dumped into the Marxism list where people like Jose Perez and Anthony
from Colombia and Owen Jones and all the other activists will just scratch
there heads about what all the fuss is. We have had a week of this stuff on
the Marxism list and it has gone over like a lead balloon? Okay?
Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
