I have 2. The People's Republic of Walmart is one. Maybe I feel this way because I work in the industry and I'm a little familiar with central planning techniques... but I just thought it was all fluff with little substance. I felt like more than one chapter was just "Walmart and Amazon do central planning so it's possible" without getting into a lot of the details. Very little about the nuts and bolts of central planning. Throw in a good dose of anti-Stalinism when the man oversaw successful central planning... I just didn't get anything out of it. Might be OK if you want a real basic introduction behind the ideas of planning but honestly I bet like 95% of you already know more about it than you realize.
And I love Graeber but jeez, I couldn't even finish Bullshit Jobs. It felt like a good article that was blown out into a book. Maybe my expectations were too high but I felt like he spent way too many pages getting into minutiae about what is/isn't a bullshit job without actually making a broader point.
Just want to put a note on Braudel, that he's decidedly not saying that capitalism has existed in all places or anything like that, but that capital and capitalists have often existed throughout history, even outside of "capitalism," where the state in effect endorses capital accumulation and universalizes that as the main economic force. Capital has existed so long as trade has existed, that's how trade works. You trade a good for money, and use that money to buy more goods to trade more to make more money. That's pretty standard capital accumulation, and was going on in ancient Rome and China no problem. The key was that the capitalists didn't control the government, didn't determine economic policy, and the state was not really interested in protecting this kind of capital accumulation. Braudel makes the point that during Renaissance Italy these capitalists got control of various city states and oriented the state towards capital accumulation, institutionalizing this process and kickstarting capitalism proper. This is a different and arguably more historical explanation for capitalism than traditional Marxist historiography, and whilst Braudel was not a Marxist many Marxist scholars (like Losurdo and Arrighi) have used his theories to further expand our own understanding of capitalism. Note how Braudel's historical account of capitalism can help explain why modern China, which has capitalists, is not a "capitalist" country.
But what do you make of Wood’s argument that capitalism began in rural late medieval England? The relentless capital accumulation you find there is pretty different from a place like Renaissance Italy, where feudalism and slavery just seem so much stronger. Take Venice as an example. It has so many seeming hallmarks of capitalism—factories, trade, wealth. But the ruling class there is really qualitatively different from the capitalist ruling class, which is always reinvesting capital in improving the forces of production. You find the Venetian ruling class, in contrast, investing in feudal estates and titles which are really not that productive and which ultimately lead them nowhere. The same thing happens even in the Netherlands. Wealth is based on buying cheap and selling dear over long distances rather than improving the productive forces. This is ultimately the reason why England and then the USA conquer the world.
I feel like there’s also a difference between capital in the traditional sense, i.e., stuff you use to make stuff (machines in a factory for instance), versus capital in the Marxist sense—a relationship between the people who own the means of production and the people who don’t. That relationship doesn’t seem to exist anywhere on Earth until the enclosures ramp up in England. Like, you will find an urban proletariat in medieval Florence and Venice, but where are you going to find capitalists? You might have some pieces you need to make capitalism, but they never come together in the very specific required way until the enclosures. The ruling class in Renaissance Italy also makes its money completely differently from English capitalists—separately from the state via economic imperatives (work or you won’t have wages to buy food) for the latter versus via the state and political imperatives (work or we will kill you) for the former.
I think I'm substantially less convinced by Woods' argument after reading Arrighi's The Long Twentieth Century, which builds off of Braudel and addresses many of the points you bring up. It's a phenomenal work.
I always saw Arrighi's description of the Italian led non-territorialized networks of exchange as the valuable seed that was planted in the fertile soils of the competitive English leasing market described by Wood
But I think both of them got a little too wrapped up in the historical realities of the fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth centuries that they miss the crucial mutation that transformed capitalism post-1730, not only in terms of technology but also the super-profits generated by the intensification of the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade
End of the day I think Marx was dead on in his description of the evolution of industrial capitalism in relation to its previous iterations
We need a substantial treatment on not only the historical origin of capitalism, but also on the invisible second origin embodied by industrial capitalism
Yeah I think as works of history Woods and Arrighi both have great cases, and can totally complement each other if the terms are changed a bit for each. Would absolutely love to read that kind of substantial treatment on industrial capitalism, if only it existed... this kind of long duree history on capitalism is few and far between.
A while ago I found a useful historical outline to formulate the treatment, but it's limited to only tracking the technological spatial diffusion of early steam engines, but I still think it's a decent map if it was paired to the concurrent developments of capital and labor markets during this time-period
The crucial years for understanding the development of modern industrial capitalism are 1700-1803, the trick is to find all the puzzle pieces shattered around academia, pieces that deal individually with slavery, technology, war, trade, history of labor and generate a work similar to Arrighi's or Wood's
It's pretty telling that something like that hasn't been attempted, we always have to remember even historians are politically minded and politically sensitive, or in the infamous case of Walter Johnson in his treatment of Marx's writings on slavery about this same time-period, outright intellectually dishonest
At least for me, one of the reasons why I find the idea of Italian city-states having an early form of capitalism convincing is because the ruling ideology of those Italian city-states wasn't particularly feudal. You can draw a straight line from Renaissance humanism espoused by intellectuals like Erasmus to Protestantism and finally to liberalism of the Enlightenment. Renaissance humanism was also a break from feudal ideology by stressing on the individual, the hallmark of all subsequent capitalist ideologies like liberalism.
I interpret the Renaissance's fascination of ancient Greek and Roman text as a rejection of feudal ideology. Since capitalism didn't exist yet/barely existed, capitalist ideology also didn't exist/is barely developed, so they can't just replace feudal ideology with liberalism but instead had to reach for some nonfeudal ideology, which in the Italian city-states' context, would be the intellectual works produced by societies organized under the slavery mode of production. This nonfeudal ideology would be further intellectually developed until it finally emerged in its mature form as liberalism.
I've been thinking a lot about this because I think you made some really good points, especially with your second paragraph. With the first I would just say that modes of production can coexist even if one is always dominant, and when one dominant mode is replaced by another, the current dominant mode can subsume the ideology of previous modes for its own ends. Italy itself was probably always the most Roman place in the entire feudal world, especially with regard to its continuous trade links with the Arabs and Byzantines, who themselves practiced slight variations on the slave mode of production. (Slavery still existed in Italy in the Middle Ages and Renaissance; some of the most successful city-states like Venice and Genoa were powered by the slave trade.) I want to say it was Cardinal Bessarion or some other Byzantine intellectuals fleeing to Italy from the Byzantine world in 1453 who helped kick off the Renaissance devotion to ancient Greece and Rome, although Italian intellectuals like Dante and Petrarch who were active a century earlier obviously helped a lot. Renaissance humanism to me seems like a reawakening and further development of the ideological superstructure of Roman slavery. The fact that you can draw a straight line from Erasmus to Locke doesn't necessarily mean that Erasmus was living under a capitalist mode of production. Capitalism itself still utilizes feudal ideas (Leonard Leo, architect of the modern SCOTUS, is literally a hospitaller); feudalism likewise used Roman ideas even in the middle of the Middle Ages (Charlemagne called himself Emperor of the Romans for instance but there are many other examples).
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
This is just semantics, Braudel isn't a Marxist so he uses different terms. For Braudel and many historians a "capitalist" is somebody whose primary trade is the production of capital, whether that be industrial capital, merchant capital, financial capital, etc is not the point. For Marx in particular capital and capitalism has a distinctly industrial bent. It's not capitalism unless the capitalists are engaged in commodity production. What Braudel and many of the world system historians are trying to do is broaden this perspective, that industrial capital is a type of capital but is perhaps not necessary for capitalism or capitalists to exist. Capital is a wonderful account of industrial capitalism and the commodity, but it is decidedly not a historical account of the rise of capital, nor is Marx trying to do that. I find the world system theory of capital far more convincing for explaining how and why capital and capitalism came about than Marx, despite being a Marxist myself. It's an ongoing debate in the historical community, though, and there's no one "right" answer for sure.
deleted by creator
You're right, I meant productive and not industrial, my bad! Yeah for Marx capitalism is decidedly productive, and it's all about production of goods and commodities rather than just the enlargement of capital as capital. Braudel and others are just trying to say that capitalism predates productive capitalism, and that production is just one form in which capital accumulation can happen.
Gonna start with this bc it comes up a lot, and not using terms in the same way will cause misunderstandings, so it’s best to start with terminology. Marx uses the word “capitalism” twice in Volume One. Once is modified by “the soul of English” before it, so it’s not an abstract “capitalism” but a very specific thing about the ideology of English capitalism (and even then, the meaning of the “soul of English capitalism” is to force the cost of labour towards zero, not an absolute law or state of existence or method of organization.) The other use is in “period of capitalism,” using capitalism not to refer to a system but rather a period in history (the period where the capitalist mode of production prevails). There is not a single mention in the book of an abstract “capitalism.” In comparison, “capitalist mode of production” appears 45 times in Volume One alone. Vol2 is less carefully edited for word choice, but the word capitalism appears 5 times, “capitalist mode of production” 22 times. Not gonna control f vol3 bc it’s a mess, a rough draft, and written before most of vol1 and vol2 were written so he’s less careful about terms, but you should get my point. “Capitalism” or “capitalist society” are terms so broad that they are meaningless so Marx avoids them unless he is dealing with very, very broad phenomena. The opening lines of Capital are “The wealth of societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails appears as ‘an immense collection of commodities’.”
This is not Marx trying to hurt your brain with wordiness or him trying to impress his audience. Marx’s letters about the writing and revising of Capital are filled with statements of the opposite; he was trying very hard to make it as clear as possible, as easy to understand as possible. The sentence “The wealth of capitalist society…” would have a very different meaning, his conscious choice to use a “wordier” version is him doing his best to make sure people don’t say things like “capitalist society,” bc there is no society that has consisted entirely of the Capitalist mode of production, and when you say things like Capitalist society people start to reify the abstractions and believe in manichean and binary thinking processes that destroy any ability to engage in dialectical materialism. To my knowledge, there has never been any society consisting entirely of one mode of production. Peoples as varied as the nehiyaw, Ming China, Australian Aboriginals, Haudenosaunee, Sami and 13th century England have/had multiple modes of production, so I don’t think there’s much chance of finding one that does have a single mode of production.
The capitalist mode of production is the prevailing mode of production in our current society. There are other modes of production that exist at the same time (various indigenous ones, peasant ones, domestic ones, to name a few broad categories). These modes of production interact with each other; the food produced in a peasant mode of production in Kenya (albeit formally (increasingly real-ly) subsumed) is prepared into a meal in the domestic mode of production in a house in France which produces labour powers that are consumed in productive (in the capitalist mode of production’s meaning of productive as per vol1) consumption to produce missiles in the capitalist mode of production. Metabolism between modes of production is one of the moments the capitalist modes of production, circulation and distribution makes use of to externalise costs, i.e. to violate the rules of capitalist circulation set out in the opening chapters of Capital to instead take use values for less than the price representing the average labour time to produce those commodities in a given time/place; i.e. as Marx outlines in part 8 “so called primitive accumulation.”
Capitalists (usually commercial, but before real subsumption of labour, industrial too) prefer to produce use values “outside” (nothing is actually outside, but capitalist mode of production generally tries to externalise costs to make the rate of profit seem higher) of capitalist production in this way because they can then be appropriated without providing exact equivalents, either through unequal exchange or direct dispossession of the producers without equivalent compensation (both are used, often together to various extents) and exploited by capitalist production, circulation, distribution and consumption.
In societies before capitalist mode of production was the prevailing mode of production, capital and capitalists (productive and commodity and money capitalists) still exist prior to the prevailing of the capitalist mode of production. If they didn’t, there wouldn’t BE capitalist production to prevail, capitalist production didn’t spawn from nowhere fully formed, it arose out of historical processes and coincidences over millennia, there is a reason Marx turned towards Rome as well as the Haudenosaunee in his analysis of non-capitalist societies.
Further he is saying that our society is one in which it is specifically the capitalist mode of production that prevails. He (repeatedly, explicitly, so people wouldn’t misunderstand him) restricted his analysis to the capitalist mode of production in Volume One. There are many, many paragraphs and footnotes (and Marx’s footnotes are often paragraph(s)) which begin with him saying that he will only examine something in relation to production, or ending with him saying the analysis can’t go further until he has explained capitalist circulation and capitalist distribution of commodities. In volumes 2 and 3 he does this; he examines merchant/commodity and credit/money capital, (i.e. capitalist modes of circulation/distribution/consumption) which prevailed before the capitalist mode of production prevailed, to show how they were necessary to come first, although he also mentions this in volume one.
Chapter 15 of volume one, as well as chapter 10 and part 8 focus in in part on the origins of the current state of society, and Marx examines wage labour, capital, etc as it exists in other societies and then shows why this did not ‘take off’ in the ecocidal deathcult of industrial capitalism. Chapter 10 shows the process by which the profuctive capitalists seized control of and remade insutries in their image in terms of labour organization. This requires the productive capitalists to exist before the capitalist mode of production has prevailed. Chapter 15 very clearly shows how the component parts for the industrial capitalist mode of production existed for centuries (even machines, etc etc), but they were not combined in the right place and the right ways until the primitive accumulation process really took off, particularly post-1492 (although doing some reading of European history and peasantries is also making me look at the crusades (‘regular’ and ‘normal’ crusades both) as attempts at primitive accumulation to raise the rate of profit in the (not yet predominating, this is at the stage where merchant capitalists are growing up between the spaces in divided europe and monarchs are relying on them for funding and administration) capitalist mode of production.
Marx is really, really careful with his words (especially in vol1 bc its the most complete), and when you change them even slightly (or borrow words or meanings from earlier, or especially unpublished) Marx you run into issues when reading the book that Marx wrote assuming it would be the first thing of his you read, bc he is assuming that you will understand the words as he's using them in Capital, not as he did 20 years or more earlier (and there's a lotta changes in those 20 years). With the (essential in my view if you want to seriously discuss such complex topics rather than banter about them like young hegelians) discussion of terminology out of the way, moving into the actual concrete points I take issues with. 1/2
Volume two of Capital explicitly deals with money-capital and commodity capital; i.e. merchant Capital. Marx says: “we shall only be considering the merchant as capitalist, and merchant’s capital, later on” (Vol2p209) and he does so extensively in vol2 and vol3. The focus of the first four chapters, which examine money-, productive- and commodity- capital separately, and then as a whole (although leaving out money-capital for the most part in volume2). The circuits of capital are all necessary, and the existence of developed merchant capital is a prerequisite for industrial capital; unless there are wholesale merchants to buy your mass produced goods and do the work of selling them, you need to do that yourself which interrupts the production process. Marx actually goes in great detail as to the elements of capitalist circulation (including merchant-capitalists) that are required in order for even small scale capitalist production to begin, let alone industrial capitalist production. Marx is very explicit in referring to the merchant as possessing capital, performing capital accumulation, hiring wage labourers who surplus value can be extracted from (Marx explicitly says this on pages 209-210 of vol2).
This isn’t accurate to Volume One. In chapter 13 Marx details extensively the division of labour in pre-capitalist modes of production. He extensively examines the history of division of labour, from Ancient Egypt to Rome to the Middle Ages to the 1700s to prevailing of the capitalist mode of production. In chapter 13 and 14 Marx further shows that in the beginning of manufacturing, the peasant modes of production were first formally and then real-ly subsumed into capitalist production/circulation/distribution/consumption; the agent of this subsumtion is a capitalist; and you’ve been hoodwinked by reified bourgeois abstractions into thinking that “capitalism” as an abstract system exists and into thinking that capitalism is when wage labour and division of labour.
All productive capital is capital, but not all capital is productive capital. Vols 2 and 3 are about commodity and money capital, respectively. You have a warped view of production. In Marx’s terms, literally everything is production, even resting and relaxation is production that reproduces a labour power. Marx’s constant, repetitious reminders that when he is examining production, productivity, he is talking specifically about production that is within the capitalist mode of production and is productive in the sense that it produces surplus value (vol 1, p644) need to be kept in mind in every line of text following, because unless he says otherwise he is assuming that you will see “productive labour” and understand he means “labour that produces not only the value of the labour power (which is different from the value of labour (labour doesn’t have a value)) but also surplus value” following, because Marx is accepting capitalist terms for sake of argument. Law of value applies to all societies where the capitalist mode of production predominates, it doesn’t matter if a particular bit of capital has entered capitalist production in the last week or 2 seconds ago, it’s value is determined by the average socially necessary amount of labour required to produce that commodity in the place and time it is found (this is why commodities may increase or decrease in value based on location). Products being sold at their values is a very easy, but critical misunderstanding. Products are not sold at their values; the price of a commodity is an approximation of its exchange value which is a reflection of value which is determined by the amount of labour embodied in it. (And it needs to be noted this is a capitalist mode of production definition of value, not something that exists constantly outside of history. Other societies have had other laws of value, there have been variations in capitalist laws of value.) Prices of production is very, very different from embodied labour time; it appears in volume 2 as Marx is talking about how capitalists view production. He argues that the capitalists view “profit” (their term for what marx calls surplus value) as arising from the difference between price/cost of production and how much the commodity is worth, and then they pat themselves on the back saying the profit comes from them making the sale rather than from the production process.
I don’t know much about the history of Arabia so I cannot speak to the specifics, but again, you should be thinking in Marx’s terms (i.e. in terms of modes of production, circulation, distribution and consumption) rather than in these idealist terms of “capitalist society” “capitalism” etc. So the question should be, where the Arab merchants capitalists (Yes, see above writings on merchant-capital) and then asking to what extent their mode of circulation and fledging capitalist productions had spread through Arabia? Sounds tedious and academic and not useful for praxis? It is, you should be reading about local news and your own government’s actions and analysing the people doing oppression instead of researching any of this, this is not going to change anything.
Would like to know where he says this; it’s not in Volume One at least. Marx mentions Rome only twelve times, none saying this. With regards to slavery in Rome, Marx says “The class-struggles of the ancient world took the form chiefly of a contest between debtors and creditors, which in Rome ended in the ruin of the plebeian debtors. They were displaced by slaves.” This is not a “most of the time” statement, this is not a claim to knowledge of how societies “should” or “usually” develop, because by the time he wrote Volume One Marx had mostly abandoned colonialist and eurocentric ideas of unilinear progress, in terms of History Volume One is concerned with the arisal of the industrial capitalist mode of production in England, he is not writing a general history of the world or of how things “should” “normally” “progress.” 2/2
deleted by creator
The words “subsumed” “subsumed” “subsumption” don’t appear in volume 2, but if you could provide me with chapters and page numbers I’d be happy to be proven wrong. As far as the substance of this argument, I’d advise re-reading chapter 10 of volume two and noting that he constantly refers to the merchant as possessing capital, holding capital, using capital (i.e. as a capitalist.) I could be wrong on the definition of commercial capitalist, but that isn’t a key foundation of my argument so I’ll accept that merchant-capital and commercial-capital are different for purposes of this discussion. I’m also unsure what subsumption would mean in relation to the law of value; when Marx uses the term in volume one, it’s with regards to the subsumption of labour into capitalist production.
Rate of profit isn’t equalised in the industrial capitalist production of England that Marx was examining in Capital — what makes you think the rate of profit would need to be equal for a ‘feudal society’’s merchants to be capitalists? If the rate of profit were equal, it would be impossible to generate relative surplus value; the drive of capitalist production towards increasing the share of constant capital in production to the detriment of the rate of profit would not exist; the entire tendency of the rate of profit to fall rests on there being differing rates of profit both between and within industries.
See above, not sure why you think rate of profit is equal, if it were the mode of production would stop functioning.
I started vol3, but the incompleteness of it made me take a break that I haven’t returned from yet. Anyway, I searched vol3 and I think this is what you are talking about: “Merchant’s capital, when it holds a position of dominance, stands for a system of robbery, so that its development among the trading nations of old and modern times is always directly connected with plundering, piracy, kidnapping slaves, and colonial conquest; as in Carthage, Rome, and later among the Ventians, Portuguese, Dutch, etc.” This is more absolute than I thought it would be (which i will justify to myself with this being a rough draft written relatively early compared to the other parts of Capital), but I’d note the phrase “when it holds a position of dominance.” This isn’t a statement about the nature of merchant capital generally, it is a statement about the nature of merchant capital (all capital in my view, but the statement is specifically merchant capital) when it holds a position of dominance (i.e. not in Medieval England, etc, (although slavery very much was an institution at the time, not the dominant one tho)).
Friend, I’ve talked extensively about why you shouldn’t be using the term ‘capitalism’ in a serious theoretical discussion. I haven’t studied the history of the Colonisation of South America to respond to the specifics, but do you have any books I could read on the topic? (Not Open Veins of Latin America, I’ve already read that). If/when I get around to reading it and it shows you’re correct, I’ll try to remember to update you. The original point you were making (in the comment i was responding to) with regards to merchant capitalists was “a merchant is a different thing than a capitalist, merchants don’t produce anything for once[sic]...” You seem to be lying about what you said. This isn’t comradely behaviour, this doesn’t bring us closer to an understanding of the existing conditions— it obfuscates them. Ignorance helps nobody.
As I said, I don’t know enough about Arabia to respond to specifics. Do you have anything you’d recommend reading on the topic of ‘Ancient Arabia’ (this seems awfully vague, but i’m assuming its jargon specific to the field.)? I’m always looking to learn more. I don’t particularly care to discuss what this other person was saying; I have enough to discuss with what you’ve said. I would note though, that ‘capitalism’ 200-300 years ago looked incredibly different from ‘capitalism’ today, just as, if we define these older societies dominated by capitalist modes of circulation as ‘capitalism’ (we define the abstractions, they aren’t god-given), we would expect them to look very different, only keeping in common the laws(tendencies) of capitalist circulation/production/etc.
Vol 1 ch.19 “Apart from these contradictions, a direct exchange of money, i.e., of realized labour, with living labour would either do away with the law of value which **only begins to develop itself freely on the basis of capitalist production…” This means that, before the capitalist law of value developed on the basis of capitalist production there were other means of determining values, unless you’re assuming no values at all existed prior to the development of capitalist production (in which case capitalist production couldn’t develop, because without capitalist circulation wage labourers cannot find their means of sustenance at market and pay for them, i.e. wage labour isn’t possible (and that’s why people lose their land slowly, often even after they work for wages for the majority of their food, you still see people gathering stuff from forests, growing stuff in gardens, until they lose that too). Capitalist law of value has changed over time imo, though I could be misunderstanding what the term means. As I was using it here, by variation in laws of value I was thinking most concretely of the (slow, too slow, insufficient) increase in the value of women’s labour. I don’t care much about the definitional battle, so if that’s called something different, I don’t really care much.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Not sure why you split your answer in two like this, seems like it’d make it harder to respond to the whole thing.
No, I think China
spoiler
is a big country in East Asia with a very big population.
Never contradicted this; I said repeatedly that the capitalist mode of production is the prevailing mode of production in our society. Prevailing in the context Marx uses it means domination, means supremacy. It does not mean being the only one that exists at any given moment, however, so all of my points wrt that still stand.
This is correct, Marx does not refer to capitalist societies in general much in Capital (as I said in my post, thank you for agreeing with me.). However to further clarify; Marx does discuss the capitalist mode of production very, very generally and abstractly (and with references to moments that are externalised from the capitalist mode of production i.e. performed in other modes of production so that the costs can be externalised.) As I said in my post, Marx does not examine “capitalist societies in general” because such societies don’t exist; the world we live in is one in which “the Capitalist mode of production prevails,” as Marx says.
Yes, I mentioned a similar point in my post, comparing mentions of “capitalism” to “capitalist mode of production,” so it should be clear that I didn’t deny Marx’s use of the term “capitalist.” ‘Capitalist’ is a different word from ‘capitalism,’ however. ‘Capitalism’ has very little (none that I can think of offhand at least) meaning apart from the abstracted system as a totality, my criticisms of it I talked about apply. ‘Capitalist’ has several meanings. One is the individual (i.e. someone engaged in capitalist production/circulation/etc), another (as appears in the previous bracket) is an adjective modifying the following noun (e.g. circulation), again, not the abstracted system as a totality. What this means is that the big abstract noun here is, for example, circulation (i.e. the way in which use values are moved between producers (but not including how they’re distributed after movement) which is modified by the adjective ‘capitalist’ to indicate that this is a specific mode of circulation, distinct from other mode of circulation.
I did not claim the capitalist mode of production (and circulation etc) could exist with other modes of production “forever,” I claimed that it exploits them for cheap use values when they exist alongside capitalist modes of production/circulation/etc. Capitalist production and circulation have a constant need to expand as you say, but it isn’t constant and it seizes onto new areas bit by bit in most cases, which leaves it still existing as capital snakes its tentacles into it and starts re-organising production, distribution, etc, along capitalist lines. For example, in the case of the fur trade in the interior of Canada, we can speak of European influence in territories with no direct contact with Europeans as the European demand for furs sees their neighbours seek them out in trade, which sees changes (quantitative) in terms of how much hunting is done (and for what), However this change has not yet changed the mod of production; the furs that are hunted by nations further inland are traded outwards towards Europe (which then included them in circuits of commodity capital accumulation in Europe at the time) in return for European goods. These European goods slowly replace self-made goods, creating a dependency. The continuing needs of Capital accumulation (i.e. growth) demand ever more furs, which leads to a need for production to be re-organised from whatever mode of production was previously used in favour of one that extracts the most from a given area per unit time (disregarding “externalities” like “who will repopulate the beavers/bison/etc”). If groups refuse to re-organise to accommodate the needs of European capital accumulation, they were faced with groups who would invading their territories (and eventually Europeans themselves, of course.) An introduction to the history of the colonisation of the plains is Daschuk’s Clearing the Plains. An introduction to the theory of the development of underdevelopment can be found in Rodney’s How Europe Underdeveloped Africa.
This is the manifesto, yes. The manifesto is a pamphlet based on a catechism written by a 20something Engels in a hurry and then turned into something less Christian by a 29 year old Marx in the span of 2 weeks, so, so much stuff in it is contradicted by later Marx, or even better by later Marxist(s) who have done actual empirical research into the stuff Marx was only speculating from armchairs in ‘48 At best, he was speculating based on what early 19th century writers wrote; do you have faith in the empirical skills and good faith representations of history of early 19th century european writers high off their asses on liberal and/or christian ideology? I really, really don’t. If you do, go read Ronald Hutton’s Pagan Britain. It’s completely unrelated to this discussion, but he trashes British (and Broader European) scholarship in such a way that both shows the issues with uncritical regurgitation of sources, as well as provides insights into how to do actual investigation. Also go read Linda Tuhiwai Smith’s Decolonizing Methodologies, iirc (been a while since I read it) it talks about the issues of Eurocentrism, liberal ideology, etc in scholarship even in the 1990s. Reading Both makes it abundantly clear that liberal brainworms are endemic to liberal society (and (secular)Christian ones to secular(Christian) society). Marx was very good at identifying and criticising them, but, as we say “you are not immune to propaganda.”
With my criticism of the manifesto out of the way, yes, capitalist production (again, why are you saying ‘capitalism’) aims to expand, but not because it seeks to “draw everyone into circulation” (this is idealist, capitalist production ), rather because it aims to constantly profit which because of how relative surplus value works, demands constant growth which demands constant inputs of both labour and ‘raw materials’. Totalizing force is very early Marx, along with the idea that capitalist ‘development’ of the colonies would follow from imperialism (e.g. the 1853 New York Tribune Article on India, idk which month/week offhand). By 1857 (another New York Tribune article, you have the euro-communists being too proud to learn english to blame for the articles going so ignored in theoretical discussion) he has realised that capitalist production, rather than ‘developing’ the colonies in the same way, ‘developed’ them specifically to meet the needs of Capital accumulation. In India, what this meant was actually destroying their industry, and then increasing taxation on peasants (guess how they were producing stuff? Definitely wasn’t the capitalist mode of production).
It’s almost always a slow process tbh. Exceptions exist etc, but generally capital seizes onto stuff piece by piece, often without doing anything more than unequal exchange at first. At first the exchange is of the non-capitalist group’s excess use values for European goods. Europeans benefit from the ability to control what they bring and access to a ‘bigger picture’; they will almost always get better deals. Over time, the non-capitalist group’s production, while still not a capitalist mode of production will become more oriented towards the needs of european capital while slowly embracing capitalist ideas of consumption, distribution and circulation. It is only at the point when a system of capitalist consumption, distribution and circulation exist (i.e. that a wage labourer can obtain all their needs through commodity exchange) that the capitalist mode of production can begin. 1/3
No, other modes of production exist within capital and exchange with them as they are slowly consumed by capitalist production/circulation/etc. They don’t exist as autonomies, this is outdated scholarship (outdated even by late Marx people rly need to stop recommending the manifesto just read Capital he really worked hard on it plz ppl read Capital). Even today there are peasant communities who hold their land collectively, produce goods collectively, distribute them collectively, etc, but they are folded into larger global systems that demand they buy fertilisers and GMO seeds which means they need to produce for exchange value (and this transformation warps the mode of production and slowly changes it into a capitalist-approximating mode of production but not the exact same thing bc capital does not remake the colonies in its own image; it remakes the colonies in the image of underdevelopment to serve the needs of the imperial core). There are also peasant communities that aim to become more self-sufficient, as you’re describing, but this is generally motivated not by unwillingness to trade with neighbours (historically peasants actually do travel in their area and exchange goods) but rather because they’d like to stay the fuck out of the capitalist hellworld europe made. I don’t have many sources for stuff on peasants offhand because I learnt it from a class with a author who’s involved (afaik he goes back to India in the Summers and uses his research funding to research the enemy (i.e. multinationals and such)) in a peasant struggle. This class looked over the history of development of underdevelopment and imperialism, particularly in relation to peasants and other non-capitalist modes of production. Some good books that look at similar themes (but these are NOT citations for the above) are Kapoor and Jordan’s “Research, Political Engagement and Dispossesion,” “Open Veins of Latin America* by Galeano, Gordon & Webber’s Blood of Extraction, Engler’s Canada In Africa, and Patnaik & Moyo’s Primitive Accumulation and the Peasantry: The Agrarian Question in the Neoliberal Era. For an interesting, though less related bc it’s not about peasants, look at how the process of destroying the AES mode of production in Poland, Dunn’s Privatizing Poland is very interesting (though with some bad takes) read. Process of pauperization is different from this; you’re conflating the process of ‘so-called primitive accumulation’ (accumulation by dispossession) with subsumtion.
For clarity; are you proposing that, the moment the nehiyawak traded a beaver pelt to a european on the banks of Hudson Bay, the entire nehiyaw mode of production was “destroyed” instantly? Are you unaware that this process took centuries? Are you unaware that this process was not one step, but several, preceding at times slowly and at times more quickly? Are you unaware that this process proceed not in one direction, but dialectically in a conflict between modes of existence, and that at some times the conflict leaned one way and sometimes another? I suggest you read Mays An Afro-Indigenous History of the United States it goes into the conflicts in the American context. Also recommend Cree Narrative Memory by McLeod as examination of that conflict from the position of the colonised.
No more than talking about a “capitalist mode of production” implies individual factories are their own modes of production. I am calling the widespread, generalised production of crops on land ‘owned’ collectively by a family, wherein the products are distributed (excepting whatever is extracted in rent/taxes/etc) among that family and consumed by that family with the main mode of circulation between families and villages often (but not always) taking the form of specific gifts, services, etc, rather than money and exchange value. On the Origins of English Individualism has a good description in the opening chapter of my criteria, though I disagree with some of the book’s later conclusions (and especially it’s framing of individualism as good).
Centralisation of capital is “concentration of capitals already formed, destruction of their individual independence, expropriation of capitalist by capitalist, transformation of many small into few large capitals.” I.e. it is capitalists expropriating each other. You mean to say they are an independent class of capitalist-farmers? This would require them to 1. own land 2. produce on that land in the capitalist mode (i.e. with wage labour) and then 3. distribute the products in the capitalist mode (i.e. owner gets the products, wage labourers get none of the products (they get wage)) and then 4. consume (whether productively or unproductively) the products as they choose. To my knowledge, before the post-2008 neoliberal landgrabs (still ongoing afaik) in Africa, there were actually still peasants owning their lands as families in Kenya, but selling their goods to big capitalists, paying rents/taxes to government or local authorities. To my knowledge (I still haven’t read We Feed the World yet but I’ve read papers in that class which made similar points so I feel relatively comfortable gesturing towards it for further reading) a lot of our (global north) food is actually produced in this manner (in the global south), even today. Family ownership of land (not “father owns and then son inherits”, actual familial ownership) is not the same as capitalist ownership; for one it often does not involve the right to alienate that land, hence why much of the landgrabbing is heavily resisted. This is not the expropriation of capitalist by capitalist that Marx defines as the centralisation of capital in chapter 28 of Volume One; it is the process of ‘so called primitive accumulation’ he discusses in part 8.
This isn’t true as an absolute (or even general) rule, historically, but that would be digressing too far (and I’d have to get books from the library to check citations which I don’t feel like doing).
No. Domestic production is not wage labour and it’s not performed to produce exchange value, it’s performed to create a use value (labour power, in the final analysis) i.e. it is not carried out in the capitalist mode of production (which uses wage labour and produces for exchange value particularly surplus value). This is the term used by Delphy in Close to Home: A Materialist Analysis of Women’s Oppression; her use of it is to show how much labour is done in the household (for free, generally by women) to produce the use values that the capitalists appropriate gratis (similar argument to Marx’s discussion of capitalist appropriation of nature as “free,” basically) as a contribution to marxist-feminist theory. She also does some very important theoretical work in the book with what class means. Her book is not a rejection of class struggle, it is an examination of a form of exploitation Marx was too high on patriarchal ideology to notice. Another book I’d advise reading to get a better grip on the production capital doesn’t want you thinking about is More Work for Mother by Cowan; it examines the domestic labour process from a similar standpoint to Marx’s examination of the industrial labour process in Chapter 13-15. Not going to respond to the other points in this other than to point out that, for expressing “I don’t know modern theory, please explain what these terms mean” you sounded very aggressive here. I would advise, when engaging in good faith with other leftists, you try and actually ask questions and clarify rather than act like a liberal on twitter who’s just looking to start trouble for fun.
“Feudal society.” Friend, the same criticism I applied to ‘capitalist society’ or ‘capitalism’ applies here. “Feudal society” would be literally everything in whatever society you’re talking about, and so it would include merchant-capitalists, but this does not mean merchant capitalists are operating using the feudal mode of production; the merchant-capitalists are not land-owners, they do not get anything from the peasants on that land without trading for it (i.e. mediated through exchange value i.e. not feudal mode of circulation) because they are not land owners.The entire structure of feudal mode of production based on relationships and services explicitly defined in qualitative terms (as discussed by Marx in Volume One), merchant-capital operates very differently from that, even in this era. It has to interact with feudal mode, yes, the individual merchant capitalist can wear multiple hats, the individual merchant capitalist moves between different modes of circulation production distribution consumption because, in all societies, there exist multiple means of all of those things. In their role as merchant, however, the merchant would only be doing merchant things. If he manages to buy land, marry into the aristocracy and kept being a merchant while receiving tribute from peasants on that land, he would be engaging in two (many more actually bc domestic would be here too) modes of production at the same time, which is how it usually is (although from what I know, historically if they could become a noble, merchants would stop doing merchant things) in reality. In Capital Marx explicitly says, very early on (before he’s even discussed the working day), that he is only considering individuals in their roles in the capitalist mode of production; this is why he brackets out personal consumption and brackets out so much complexity (often explicitly saying he is doing so because Marx was not trying to describe reality, he was trying to describe the capitalist mode of production which is the prevailing mode of production in our society which means it has the largest influence on the structure of our society, but it is not the only structure (even the totality of volume 3 (production, circulation, distribution and credit) explicitly brackets out everything falling outside of that from the immediate analysis, he does not say they do not exist.
Yes, this is partially correct. You’re neglecting the role of the cities in producing manufactured goods, however. Many peasants don’t make all of their own tools; generally they trade with other people, whether peasants in their or other villages or travelling merchants or some other such way, but they usually do have a lotta stuff that was produced outside their particular family (which is the basic unit of the peasant mode of production as I define it, production and consumption united in the family).
Yeah my bad here. The phrasing was very bad I think. I mean to say that, when possible, capitalists would prefer to appropriate use values without providing what would be (in the capitalist mode of production/etc) an equivalent exchange value as possessed by the use value. I.e. they would prefer to take stuff and pay less, or even nothing for the use value. One example is something “furnished by Nature gratis”; i.e. the ideological belief of capitalists that they can consume the natural world with reckless abandon because it has no value unless altered by labour and as such can be appropriated for free. Similarly, as Delphy shows in Close to Home and Cowan shows in More Work for Mother, female coded/domestic labour is appropriated gratis, allowing for the production of use values with no “value” in terms of the capitalist mode of production. Another example is how the commute to work gets labelled as outside of your labour by your boss despite being a clear and necessary part of getting your work done; they’ve placed that labour, the labour of reproducing your labour power at the till at 5 AM, outside of the capitalist mode of production so that it becomes ‘natural’ that the commute is completed with no need to compensate the worker for the transportation.
Prices never ever equals value, it’s a reflection of exchange value which is the value of the labour that would be required to reproduce the commodity in given condition. Marx is very clear about this so I’m unsure where the confusion is coming from. Value can and does differ significantly from exchange value and price; that’s the basis of relative surplus value which is the basis of the constant search for new technologies. Capital not controlling production is irrelevant to the functioning of commercial capital; the basis of capitalist production is the profits from commercial capital and accumulation by dispossession. You don’t seem to realise that medieval and earlier societies can and did have different prices for given commodities at different cities, towns and villages based on the value required to produce (production includes transportation see vol2 ch6) that commodity in that place and time. A good book on how medieval English markets worked, for example, is Masschaele’s Peasants, Merchants and Markets (although i would disagree with classifying the peasants in this book as peasants in terms of using the peasant mode of production/etc) 3/3
Crucially you don’t produce goods to make money in merchant capital though, you are valve of supply/demand differentials