>At 05:43 PM 5/17/01 -0400, you wrote:
>>You can
>>find out her views on the MR website in the article "The Agrarian Origins
>>of Capitalism". She states that capitalism existed without workers.
>
>I really don't care about her position _per se_ (or Bob Brenner's
>position _per se_) as much as what helps us understand history &
>practice better. (I try not to put too much energy into caring about
>personalities. It's for people who read PEOPLE magazine.)
>"Capitalism without workers" or without proletarianization makes
>little or no sense to me. (It makes sense if we reject Marx's
>definition & theory of capitalism.)
>
>Awhile back, I had a little dialogue with Bob Brenner about a
>MONTHLY REVIEW article that Wood wrote. She indicated something that
>sounded vaguely like "capitalism without workers." (Something like
>that if South Africa borrows, it gets proletarianized, no matter if
>work is organized by cooperatives or whatever.) Bob agreed with me
>that it didn't fit with his vision of capitalism even though she
>cites him a lot.
>
>Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Proletarianization, however, is a process, not an event (just as
primitive accumulation is a process, not an event). Between direct
producers in pre-capitalist societies (be they in England or Africa)
& modern proletarians, there would have to be "transitional forms."
Yoshie
