And just to make sure no call goes without a response-- my reply to LP's blog:
Note that Marx says: "England at the end of the 17th century, they arrive at a systematical combination, embracing the colonies, the national debt, the modern mode of taxation, and the protectionist system." They arrive at a systemical combination-- that would indicate a culmination, and a system able to turn the treasures captured outside Europe by looting, slavery, and murder into capital. What system could do that? A system that had already established the social relations of capital internally, in its domestic market. What systems could not do that? The sysems that in fact had failed to establish such capitalist relations internally, in its domestic market, in agriculture. Like Spain. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Louis Proyect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <PEN-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 9:04 PM Subject: [PEN-L] What Marx meant by primitive accumulation I plan to blog thousands of words over the summer about the "transition debate", which involves principals including Paul Sweezy, Maurice Dobb, Robert Brenner, Jim Blaut et al but just want to jump the gun on something that is fresh in my mind.
