Reply to Ellen Meiksins Wood

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> jcraven@xxxxxxxxx 05/17/01 01:53PM >>>
Response: It was said previously that Ellen Wood is a or even THE "leading"
Marxist theoretician. Since Marxists believe in the dialectical unity of
theory and PRACTICE, what forms and levels of "practice" (as in concrete
struggles in concrete ways) has she been/is she involved in exactly?

Just a question--not rhetorical--as I have never heard of her or read her
writings before this article (not that that means anything as there are a
whole lot of issues and practicioner/theoreticians about which/whom I am
ignorant). I personally found little in her last article of use in some of
the struggles in which I am involved; but maybe I am missing something.

Enlightment please.

Jim C

((((((((

CB:

I have been trying to pull together a new comment on this issue for a couple of 
days.
I don't have the time to write the whole comment now, but will start as it is 
getting
dated in relation to the latest thread on this. The topic of the history and
especiallly origin of capitalism has been the basis for a number of very heated 
and
popular threads in these corners of left cyberspace. I want to start out by 
addressing
Jim C's comment on the need for unity of theory and practice.

It is difficult to demonstrate the relevance to today's practice of the detailed
analysis of events from 500 years ago or so. So, perhaps this thread is mainly 
of
intellectual and scholarly interest.  My argument to the contrary ( a little) 
would be
that the Marxist theory of capitalism is rooted in part in a long term theory of
history even before capitalism, historical materialism. Marx , from whom we get 
our
concern to always tie our theory to practice, made his theory most potent by 
looking
at these larger historical wholes of longterm capitalism and long term class
exploitative society. The succinct and famous expression of this is in _The 
Manifesto
of the Communist Party_ ( the link between theory and practice is expressed in 
the
fact that that document is founding a party for action).

More specifically here, I think that the Meiksins Wood, Brenner thesis ( and 
even
Dobbs from Lou Proyect's discussion of Dobbs' thesis regarding origin in the 
towns and
trade in England) is defective for informing practice in the year 2001 because 
it does
not define capitalism as its whole system of wage-labor in the bourgeois 
homelands AND
 oppressed forms of labor, such as slavery, in its colonies, plantations, 
ghettoes and
barrios.  We need an understanding of capitalism today that sees it as from the
beginning dependent upon forms of labor that are not fully waged. The racist
oppression and creation of a caste of Black and other workers of color in the 
U.S. is
not a non-necessary or contingent or dispensable aspect of U.S. capitalism, 
TODAY.
The inequalities between workers the imperialist centers and in the neo-colonies
around the globe are a necessary condition of capitalism. This is a historical 
and
structural fact of capitalism. The Proyect/Wood debate impacts the historical 
aspect
of this.

I am glad to have the essay by Meiksins Wood in _Against the Current_ ( one of 
my
hometown journals :>); I see Dave Finkel fairly often around town) , because I 
now
have her exact formulations regarding Marx's discussion of the socalled 
primitive
accumulation of capitalism. I have been arguing all along that Marx's version 
of the
origin of capitalism is like mine above, i.e. more holistic or dialaectical
geographically than Woods or Brenner. Reading Wood's discussion in the article 
, I
would say that she does misinterpret or misread Marx on this issue. For those 
who have
read my comments on this before this may sound like a mantra, but Marx says very
explicitly that the slavery and colonialism were the "chief momenta " of the 
primitive
accumulation of capitalism. Let me annotate some of Wood's discussion in 
"Eurocentric
Anti-Eurocentrism" to get at this.

In a section as follows Wood starts out:

Challenging Eurocentrism
This kind of argument seems to me a regression, which forfeits much of the 
progress
historians have made in challenging the Eurocentric model.  The real 
breakthroughs in
opposing that model have come from historians—mainly Marxists, but also 
an economic
historian like Karl Polanyi—who have undermined the naturalization of 
capitalism, the
view that capitalism is basically a natural extension of certain universal human
practices, which would itself have become universal if only all the world's 
peoples
were as rational and free as Europeans.

By insisting on the historical specificity of capitalism, they have dealt a 
fatal blow
to the most Eurocentric principle of all: that the European path of development
culminating in industrial capitalism is the natural order of things and that
non-European civilizations that did not take that path, or faltered somewhere 
along
the way, failed because they were somehow fatally flawed.

(((((((

CB: Although this is not yet a discussion of primitive accumulation, this is a 
central
theoretical argument Wood makes, echoed in some of Yoshie's support of Wood's 
theses (
I expressed my disagreements with Yoshie on this , by the way, but I was very 
sorry to
see Comrade Furuhashi leave the list related to this dispute). On this , let me 
say I
think Wood misses a central idea of Marxist theory: that capitalism is not only 
a
contingent historical process but also contradictorily a necessary extension of 
prior
class exploitative society. Furthermore, commodity production ( production for
exchange, not use by the producer) does exist in precapitalist society, and so 
there
is a kernel or seed for capitalism in prior socieities.  The fact that Marx 
argues
that capitalism is not the natural order of things is not the same thing as his
arguing that capitalism is not caused in part by the prior existing societies 
and
class structures. Wood's absolute historical specificity is not the same as 
Marx's
approach. Capitalism does not spring from the head of Zeus fully born like 
Minerva or
whatever.

As the Manifesto says:

"The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal 
society has
not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new
conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones"


Here, Marx and Engels are not arguing that " the naturalization of capitalism, 
the
view that capitalism is basically a natural extension of certain universal human
practices," as Wood puts it.


((((((((

Wood:
The challenge begins with Marx's critique of classical political economy and its
notion of "primitive accumulation."  In some of his own historical sketches (for
instance, in the Manifesto) Marx never completely dissociated himself from the 
old
model (which I call the "bourgeois paradigm").  There, the origin of capitalism 
was
not so much explained as presupposed, as a new social form waiting to be 
released by
the rising bourgeoisie when it finally threw off its feudal shackles.

For Marx's truly distinctive "Marxist" approach, we have to look to his 
critique of
political economy.  Although that approach was obviously much more developed in 
his
revolutionary analysis of contemporary capitalism, in his dissection of "the 
so-called
primitive accumulation" in volume I of Capital, he applied his critique to the
historical question of the system's origin.

((((((((

CB: Here we see that Wood is somewhat aware that her approach is not the same as
Marx's. Only she poses it as if Marx is partially stuck in what Wood calls the
bourgeois paradigm.  Hardly. It is Wood who is partially stuck in a bourgeois
paradigm. Wood doesn't seem to get that for Marx, the bourgeois revolution is a
qualitative leap which is also a sublation. It both overcomes and preserves the 
old
society.  Thereby , the new social form is to an extent existing in the 
struggles of
the bourgeoisie in feudalism as a potential. Capitalism is not entirely 
arbitrary or
contingent in relation to feudalism or  other previous class exploitative 
societies.

Marx's approach is fully Marxist ( :>)) in _The Manifesto_ and in _Capital_, In 
that
approach, he sees some roots of the new society contained in the old. 
Specifically,
the bourgeoisie are an oppressed class in feudalism , and their shape there 
prefigures
their shape in capitalism. Simple enough. Not really that hard to believe or
understand.

So, Wood begs the question or makes a circular argument here. Marx is not 
acting like
true Marx when he contradicts Wood's version of Marx on the historical 
specificity of
a "Marxist" approach to the origin of capitalism.

But actually, Marx is thoroughly a Marxist, and it is Wood who develops a 
non-Marxist
approach to the question.


((((((((

Wood:
Here ( in his discussion of the socalled primitive accumulation in _Capital_) 
Marx did
decisively break with the old paradigm and laid a foundation for important
elaborations by later Marxist historians.  He insisted that wealth by itself 
wasn't
"capital," that capital was a social relation, that the mere accumulation of 
wealth
was not the decisive factor in the origin of capitalism, and that a 
transformation of
social property relations—the expropriation of direct producers, 
specifically in
England—was the real "primitive accumulation."

((((((((

CB: This is a misrepresentation of the text of _Capital_ and Marx's discussion 
of the
"primitive accumulation.

Briefly, "The So-called Primitive Accumulation" is Part VIII of Vol. I of 
_Capital_.
This Part has 8 chapters, XXVI through XXXIII. Chapters XXVII through XXX 
discuss
Wood's favorite topics in the English country side. But Chapter XXXI , "Genesis 
of the
Industrial Capitalist" contain Marx's discussion of the critical role of 
slavery and
colonialism in the primiitive accumulation. As far as I can see, Wood doesn't 
mention
or discuss this chapter. And if of course carries the famous passages that 
contradict
Wood's version of Marx's thesis:

"The discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation, enslavement and
entombment in mines of the aboriginal population, the beginning of the conquest 
and
looting of the East Indies, the turning of Africa into a warren for the 
commercial
hunting of black-skins, signalised the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist 
production.
These idyllic proceedings are the chief momenta of primitive accumulation. On 
their
heels treads the commercial war of the European nations, with the globe for a 
theatre.
It begins with the revolt of the Netherlands from Spain, assumes giant 
dimensions in
England's Anti-Jacobin War, and is still going on in the opium wars against 
China, &c.

The different momenta of primitive accumulation distribute themselves now, more 
or
less in chronological order, particularly over Spain, Portugal, Holland, 
France, and
England. In 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. These methods depend in part on brute force, 
e.g., the
colonial system. But, they all employ the power of the State, the concentrated 
and
organised force of society, to hasten, hot-house fashion, the process of
transformation of the feudal mode of production into the capitalist mode, and to
shorten the transition. Force is the midwife of every old society pregnant with 
a new
one. It is itself an economic power"

Until Wood addresses this passage and chapter, I don't know what to say except 
, she
missed half of Marx's discussion.

By the way, Jim Blaut is one of my heroes (more on that below) ,but I always 
pointed
to this passage in discussions with Jim to argue that Marx's thesis is not as
Eurocentric as Jim argued.

The phrase "the process of transformation of the feudal mode of production into 
the
capitalist mode, " again contradicts Wood's general understanding of a Marxist
theoretical approach to the relationship between capitalism and feudalism. And 
this is
_Capital_, not The Manifesto.

((((((((((





The point of Marx's critique of "the so-called primitive accumulation" (and 
people too
often miss the significance of the phrase "so-called") is that no amount of
accumulation, whether from outright theft, from imperialism, from commercial 
profit,
or even from the exploitation of labor for commercial profit, by itself 
constitutes
capital, nor will it produce capitalism.

((((((((

CB: An interesting point here is that I too have long noticed the term 
"socalled".
However, it is also interesting that in the passage above "socalled " is not 
used
before "primitive accumulation" . We might infer from that the colonial 
holocaust was
the REAL, not socalled, primitive accumulation. But I think Wood misunderstands 
the
status of the "wealth" that was accumulated in the primitive accumulation. It 
is a
necessary and critical premise to fully capitalist wealth and accumulation.

Also, near the beginning of the first chapter of this section, XXVI, "The 
Secret of
the Primitive Accumulation" is a more direct assertion supporting what I am 
saying
here:

"In actual history it is notorious that conquest, enslavement, robbery, murder,
briefly force, play the great part. In the tender annals of Political Economy, 
the
idyllic reigns from time immemorial. Right and "labor" were from all time the 
sole
means of enrichment, the present year of course always excepted. As a matter of 
fact,
the methods of primitive accumulation are anything but idyllic. "

The burden is on Wood to demonstrate that Marx said "enslavement" but meant
"wage-labor", or that "conquest" does not refer to conquest outside of England.

(((((((((((


Wood:

The "primitive accumulation" of classical political economy is "so-called" 
because
capital, as Marx defines it, is a social relation and not just any kind of 
wealth or
profit, and accumulation as such is not what brings about capitalism.  Of 
course some
accumulated wealth is necessary, but the specific precondition of capitalism is 
a
transformation of social property relations that generates capitalist "laws of
motion": the imperatives of competition and profit-maximization, a compulsion to
reinvest surpluses, and a systematic and relentless need to improve 
labor-productivity
and develop the forces of production.

((((((((((

CB: Evidently, Marx thinks that accumulation of proto-capital wealth is a 
specific
precondition of capitalism.   This seems the crux of the disagreement between 
what
Marx says and what Wood substitutes as her more Marxist theory than Marx's.  
Marx
argues that the old forms of wealth and the forms of wealth in transition 
between the
old forms and the capitalist form ARE "specific preconditions" of capitalistic
accumulation. What else would "chief momenta " be ? The elements Wood lists are 
also
necessary preconditions. It is a simple matter of expanding her list to enclude 
the
activities of the Europeans around the globe as well as in the English 
countryside as
NECESSARY to the initiation of capitalism.

(((((((


The critical transformation of social property relations, in Marx's account, 
took
place in the English countryside.

(((((((

CB: This is false, as demonstrated by the Chapter quoted above.  I have not 
found Marx
calling the social property relations in the English countryside as "the 
critical
tranformation of social property relations". Wood fails to understand slavery 
and
colonialism as social property relations or their establishment ( or 
"transformation")
as equally critical with what took place in the English countryside in the
establishment of capitalism.

And to return to an original point, the imperialist relations with neo-colonies 
and
Third World countries, and racist and oppressed national divisions of the 
working
class within imperialist centers like the U.S. are just as critical, necessary, 
and
definitional of capitalism today as are "the imperatives of competition and
profit-maximization, a compulsion to reinvest surpluses, and a systematic and
relentless need to improve labor-productivity and develop the forces of 
production" .



((((((((

Wood:

"Marx regards this rural transformation as the real "primitive accumulation" not
because it created a critical mass of wealth but because these social property
relations generated new economic imperatives, especially the compulsions of
competition, a systematic need to develop the productive forces, leading to new 
laws
of motion such as the world had never seen before. "

((((((((

CB: As demonstrated above, Marx does not treat the rural transformation as more 
real
primitive accumulation than colonialism and slavery.

Here let me mention something I haven't said before. It is true that the world 
had
never seen the specific laws of motion of capitalist accumulation before. But 
those
new laws of motion also included "globalized" colonialism and capitalist 
slavery.

 Furthermore, what was new in capitalism was not equivalent to what was 
necessary and
critical in capitalism. Conquest, enslavement, robbery, murder, briefly force , 
had
been seen by the world before however "in actual history it is notorious that
conquest, enslavement, robbery, murder, briefly force, play the great part" in
originating capitalism.

((((((((((

Wood:

At the heart of this argument was Marx's insistence on the historical 
specificity of
capitalism.  This meant that capitalism had a historical beginning and 
therefore a
conceivable end.  Capitalism was not the product of some inevitable natural 
process,
nor was it the end of history.  It had emerged in very specific historical 
conditions.
 If it was spreading throughout the world, this wasn't because of any 
"diffusion" of
inherently superior Western ideas and practices but because of capitalism's own
specific imperatives, its ruthless drive for self-expansion.

((((((((

CB: Capitalism was not and is not the end of history , but it is a product of 
history.
The idea that capitalism was caused by preceding conditions does not contradict 
the
idea that it is also historically specific or the idea that it is not an 
inevitable
natural process. Marx's position is that capitalism is the result of historical
tendencies in the prior period. It doesn't just fall out of the sky, like a 
meteor,
like a natural accident , either.

Enough for now. I will pull together some comments on Jim Blaut and Eurocentrism
later. For now let me say, that "Eurocentrism" is a form of the concept of White
Supremacy. White Supremacist action , if not that specific conception, was a 
necessary
part of capitalism from its origin exactly because of the critical role of the
primitive accumulation in the colonies and plantations. Capitalism is from the 
start,
critically , a global system, with a concentration of oppressed labor / less 
than
wage-labor forms outside of Europe.

One question that those subscribing to the Wood/Brenner thesis must answer is 
why
would the English and other Europeans spend so much time and resources on their
colonies and slave trade if it was a non-critical aspect of their system ? 
Pursuing
adventure as pirates around the world as fun and leisure doesn't make sense. 
The great
risk of  these travels was taken because it played an important role in 
accumulating
fortune, and this fortune was a "chief" part of  the first , primary or 
"primitive"
CAPITALIST accumulation.