right. But Marx's emphasis had changed, to talk about the expropriation of domestic producers in England (the enclosure movement). Without the resulting creation of a mass proletariat, the looting from the rest of the world would not have promoted capitalism. It would have likely lead instead to wars and more wars, royal pomp and imperial waste, i.e., a continuation of the feudal "order." -- Jim Devine /
^^^^ CB: When you say his emphasis changed in _Capital_I, what about his use of the terms "chief momenta" of the primitive accumulation to refer to colonialism and slavery ? The word "chief" seems to give at least equal emphasis to that "half". The title of the "Chapter" is "the Genesis of the _Industrial_ Capitalist " or the like. It's true he spends more time describing the details of the English countryside, there and in Vol. III. Maybe that's because most of his immediate audience in _Capital_ would be descendants of the English peasants, not the descendants of the colonials and slaves.
