Jim D. says:
>it's true that we see the result of small farmers being destroyed by
>market competition, but this destruction is a result, not something
>that was anticipated when primitive accumulation was organized. The
>primitive accumulators -- the big landlords -- would prefer it if
>the petty farmers didn't exist or were restricted to the worst
>lands. They don't want proletarians to have an option but to work
>for the capitalists (though they don't say it this way -- see
>Michael Perelman's recent book).
This is where the division of labor between the ruling class and the
governing elite comes in. The former don't foresee the result even
now, but the latter who actually do the daily work of governing --
especially policy wonks with some left-wing backgrounds who have read
Marx or Marxists -- by now know what they are doing, I think. I
don't know if de Soto knows what he is doing (if he doesn't, he's
dumb), but a lot of wonks do.
>Further, the slow primitive accumulation -- expropriation -- of the
>small farmers contrasts with the often-violent expropriation of
>"high" primitive accumulation (the enclosure movement, etc.)
Sure, but violent expropriation causes a violent backlash (e.g., a
movement of the landless to squat, etc.), so sometimes you want to
proceed slowly but surely....
>these land reforms were also a "failure" in that they kept a certain
>portion of the labor force from being proletarianized for a long
>time. Even those who have to work for wages to survive are only
>semi-proletarianized, since they have their gardens to fall back on.
Access to tiny plots of land on the part of semi-proletarians is a
kind of mixed blessing for capitalists. On one hand, it's probably
easier to squeeze the totally landless; on the other hand, with
semi-proletarians' access to plots which make survival possible even
with _below-subsistence_ wages paid by employers, capitalists don't
have to face fierce demands for higher wages and/or a social safety
net provided through the state (which might have a mildly progressive
redistributive effect).
The smart elite, generally speaking, don't want to squeeze
proletarians maximally; they'd rather exploit optimally. Not all the
elite, to be sure, are smart, but enough of them have been, I think.
Yoshie
