I think Ted is correct in identifying what is "missing" from Brenner's account, but I don't think that puts him at odds with Marx at all, although it certainly puts him at odds with Adam Smith.
Brenner discounts the independent "passions" of the lord, the merchant, finding "passions," and identifying passions with an "impulse" of, to, or for transition essentially equivalent to arguments about capitalist human nature, and the "capitalism" inherent in all economic systems, in all trade, in all exchanges. Instead of passions, impulses, unintended consequences, Brenner looks to economic necessity,the social consequences of struggle over property and surplus, and transformation of the role of markets as the material elements in social transformation. That approach is consistent with Marx's work. At some point, I would like to comment on Ted's linkage of Hegel and Marx and what Marx actually did with Hegel' categories and linkages, i.e "stages of the human mind." My view is very different than Ted's, but the discussion might not be of interest to the rest of the list. -----Original Message----- >From: Ted Winslow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: May 18, 2007 10:06 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [PEN-L] I say po-tay-to, you say po-tah-to > >Michael Perelman wrote: > >> Smith, like Keynes, realizes that passions do not disappear with >> the rise of >> capitalism, but rather markets sublimate the passions into positive >> purposes. > >Smith, Marx and Keynes all contrast the "passions" specific to >capitalism - the "essential characteristic of capitalism" being, >according to Keynes, "the dependence upon an intense appeal to the >money-making and money-loving instincts of individuals as the main >motive force of the economic machine" - with those dominant in non- >capitalist contexts such as feudalism. > >Marx and Keynes, in contrast to Smith, make the capitalist "passions" >a means for creating the material abundance necessary for their >transcendence. > >Marx's conception of the "passions" and of class relations and class >conflict as aspects of an historical process consisting of internally >related "stages in the development of the human mind" seems to be >missing from Brenner's account of the transition from feudalism from >capitalism. For instance, he treats "unproductive expenditures on >military equipment or conspicuous consumption" as instrumentally >rational means of feudal lords "increasing their incomes via the >increase of absolute surplus labour," the latter being the method of >increasing their incomes to which they were "largely confined" by >feudal class relations. > >"Because the lords could not easily improve the productive forces >under serfdom, they were largely confined to increasing their incomes >via the increase of absolute surplus labour. They could, >specifically, increase output only within the definite limits of the >available land (subject to transport costs), population, intensity of >labour and minimum subsistence level. They thus had little incentive >to ‘accumulate’: to reinvest surplus in improved means of production. >On the contrary, unproductive expenditures on military equipment or >conspicuous consumption could make possible the attraction and >equipment of followers. The resultant enhancement of military >capability could make possible the improvement of the individual >lord’s productive potential— that is, through the outright seizure of >lands and labourers in warfare. Indeed, precisely because the >potential for the development of the productive forces was so >limited, development of military strength might be the most promising >means to increase the productive powers of the individual lords." >Brenner, "The Origins of Capitalist Development: a Critique of Neo- >Smithian Marxism" in New Left Review, July-August 1977. > >He treats any implication that feudal lords were "irrational" as a >sign of error in any account of the transition where it's found. > >"It is now known that by the later middle ages in northwest Europe >certain methods of agricultural production had been developed which >would have substantially improved output. Yet, as Dobb pointed out >many years ago, where serfdom existed—that is, where the lords were >in a position to actually control peasant mobility and access to land— >the impact of trade only induced the lords to tighten their hold over >the serfs, to increase exactions (including labour rent) and, we can >add, to eschew innovation in agriculture. This was as true for the >areas producing for the urban food markets in England during the >medieval period as it was for the East European regions producing for >the world food market from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries. >20 Does this mean that the lords were ‘irrational?’" > >Ted
