Lenin's Tomb and the Brenner thesis
Posted to www.marxmail.org on May 1, 2006
The estimable Richard Seymour of Lenin's Tomb has a posting on the Brenner thesis titled "Marxism, the bourgeoisie and capitalist imperialism" (http://leninology.blogspot.com/2006/04/marxism-bourgeoisie-and-capitalist.html) that is well worth reading, even though I do have a number of criticisms. Beforehand, I think it would be worthwhile to provide some historical background for those who are unfamiliar with the controversy surrounding the "transition" debate.
In 1950, Paul Sweezy wrote a critique of Maurice Dobb's "Studies
in the Development of Capitalism" in the journal "Science and
Society" that touched off a debate on the transition from feudalism to
capitalism. Dobb viewed changes in the British countryside associated with
"primitive accumulation" as key, while Sweezy stressed trade involving
city-states such as
Dobb's main defenders in the debate were veterans of
Not long after the debate died down, Sweezy and fellow
Monthly Review editor Paul Baran developed a theory of monopoly capital that
questioned the system's dynamism--particularly in the 3rd world. A
UN economist based in
After the Vietnam War ended and these guerrilla movements
subsided or evolved into counter-productive semi-terrorist formations, there
was a reaction to what was seen as the excesses of the 1960s. One young
historian decided to challenge the
Brenner openly described himself as being in the tradition
of Maurice Dobb, but was even more single-minded. Unlike Dobb, who did
acknowledge the role of primitive accumulation in the New World to a limited
extent (slavery does get an occasional mention in his Studies), Brenner sees the introduction of tenant farming in
In a 1977 New Left Review article titled "The origins
of capitalist development: A critique of Neo-Smithian
Marxism," Brenner defended his thesis about how capitalism originated as
well as taking pot-shots at the "third-worldist"
deviations of the Monthly Review. Brenner was not alone in taking up this
polemic. He was linked with Bill Warren, Ernesto Laclau
and Eugene Genovese. While they obviously approached things from somewhat
different angles, they all tended to agree that Andre Gunder
Frank was not a true Marxist and that capitalism was far more dynamic than the
"dependency school" realized. Socialist Register editor Colin Leys,
who started out as a "dependista," evolved into an enthusiastic
supporter of the Brenner thesis and applied it in a somewhat novel manner to
contemporary
Turning now to Richard's defense of the Brenner thesis, I want to focus on the following passage:
Richard writes:
"Since many left accounts of the rise of capitalism tend to accentuate the role of colonial exploitation in the 'primitive accumulation of capital', Wood points out that a) this is to confuse capital as social relation with capital as wealth and b) Spain was an early colonial power which exploited South America's mines to the hilt, yet tended to expend this 'capital' on feudal pursuits."
Did
It actually might make sense just to remind ourselves what really feudalism was about. As Kautsky stressed, it involved the "natural economy", which meant production largely of use-values. Some scholars, including John Haldon, describe this as the "tributary mode of production." It is a closed economy marked by ruling class paternalism that seemed indifferent to profit and productivity. Michael Perelman points out in "The Invention of Capitalism":
"Although their standard of living may not have been
particularly lavish, the people of precapitalistic
northern
Whatever else one might say about Spanish rule in the
It is also important to take into account that Spanish
colonists invested the profits from mining in exactly the same fashion as their
British counterparts from an early date. Just as Jamaican sugar plantations
generated the wealth necessary to start a
"In 1804 the corregidor of Querétaro counted 18 factories (obrajes) and 327 workshops (trapiches) in his town, the former group operating 280 looms and the latter up to 1,000. The larger firms wove woollen ponchos, blankets, serges, and sarapes while the smaller produced coarse cottons. In addition, there were another 35 workshops making hats and ten treating leather and suede goods. Estimates as to how many people were engaged in this industry varied. In 1803 the factory owners admitted that they kept over 2,000 men shut up within the walls of their prison-like establishments. In the same year the corregidor stated that some 9,000 persons of both sexes were occupied in the spinning, weaving and finishing of cloth. The industry's consumption of wool averaged about a million pounds and the value of its product was later reckoned to reach over million pesos a year. These figures, moreover, excluded the 3,000 workers employed by the tobacco monopoly."
Now one might account for the profusion of capitalist
manufacturing in 18th century
For that matter, one might say that without the fortuitous
"discovery" of the New World with its abundance of mineral wealth and
the inability of native peoples to resist smallpox and other infectious
diseases, there never would have been a capitalist take-off anywhere in
"If, indeed, the processes of historical change out of
feudalism and toward capitalism (or something like capitalism) were going on in
various parts of the Eastern Hemisphere in the late Middle Ages, and
northwestern Europe was in no sense a leader, how do we explain the fact that
Europe rose, Africa and Asia did not, and northwestern Europe developed
industrial capitalism and empire? My own view focuses, again, on the matter of
place: of location, or accessibility. We start with a conception of an eastern
hemisphere with a number of mercantile-maritime centers, all developing and all
interconnected. Iberian centers were very much closer to the
Full: http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/Blaut/brenner.htm