Date: Thu Sep 07 2006 - 10:52:04 EDT
Hi Paul Z: A few queries: 1) the English translation Part Eight of Volume One of _Capital_ has the title: "So-Called Primitive Accumulation". Yet, the title and references to the topic in Ch. 26 doesn't contain "so-called" (sogenannte). Should it be referred to with or without the "so-called"? Statements like "In the history of primitive accumulation, are revolutions are epoch-making that act as levers for the capitalist class in the course of its formation ...." (p. 876 Penguin ed.) suggest that it was a historical reality rather than merely a "so-called" phenomenon. 2) In the same para. cited above where Marx refers to the history of primitive accumulation, he also refers to "the expropriation of the agricultural producer, the peasant, from the soil" and "The history of this expropriation assumes different aspects in different countries, and runs through its various phases in different orders of succession, and at different historical epochs. Only in England, which we therefore take as our example, has it the classic form." Wouldn't this suggest that, at least in this para., he was referring to primitive accumulation and this form of expropriation [the expropriation of the agricultural producer] as interchangeable expressions? .. 3) Should "ursprunglichen" be translated as "primitive" or "original"? To what extent does the translation have any import in terms of the debate of the contemporary relevance or irrelevance of this process? In solidarity, Jerry > I don't know about a documentary, but do remark that "primitive acc." is > used by Marx only for the transition from feudalism to capitalism in the > original constitution of the C.M. of P. > For the 19-21 centuries, I prefer usage saying simply "expropriation > ...". For those interested, I documented my point in The Commoner a > few years back.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 30 2006 - 00:00:06 EDT