Abstract
Robert Brenner's theory of the passage from feudalism to capitalism in England in the early modern era contends that an “agrarian capitalism” makes up the core of the transition. This thesis is weak, measured against fundamental insights presented by Karl Marx in different parts of Capital, I. On the other hand, in the exposition of English developments subsequent to the Tudor enclosures, in the last part of that work, “So-Called Primitive Accumulation,” Marx conspicuously ignores relevant insights developed in earlier chapters, on the nature of manufacture and of large-scale industry. There, manufacture had appeared as a condition of large-scale industry, while advanced capitalism was seen as a result of overcoming deficiencies in the structure of manufacture. Marx's text on primitive accumulation would have benefited from being presented more in coherence with this earlier analysis. The “agrarian capitalism” thesis loses credibility when confronted with empirical data on English manufacture and a Marxian synthesis.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.