> Frank in his *World Accumulation 1492-1790* argues that the > contribution of colonial trade to primitive accumulation and > industrialization fluctutated with the business cycle. External factors > (trade) was important during recessions like the 17th century recession > and internal class struggle important during boom and expansion like > during the 16th century. I think Brenner's criticism of Frank is sound, > F locates all dynamism in the sphere of circulation rather than the > sphere of > production though F pays lip service to a "dialectical unity" between > internal and external factors. In *World Accumulation* its Smith, Smith, > Smith. Frank even has his chapter headers with quotes from Smith. Sam, I read World Accumulation a while back and I dont think it is a serious work but more the product of someone too satisfied with their celebrity status and their own beliefs, to feel they have a need to prove themselves. It is strictly descriptive and full of spurious correlations. His Re-Orient is much better, and perhaps, as he says in the acknowledgements, his 'best book', but, still, he should have waited before publishing it, and dealt with a number of inconsistencies, and the many claims he makes which lack a proper empirical basis. > I'm about halfway through Dobb's *Studies in the Development of > Capitalism" where he argues, like Frank, that mercantile capital grew > stronger during recession and famine. Dobb really takes the bull by the > horns and answers the tough question of: where did the capitalists come > from? Essentially the capitalist class grew out of merchant capital > together with the upper crust of the gilds and the burghers. Dobb is still one of the best Marxist texts on this question. I have a paper on his book Studies, and can forward you the reference if you want.
