PRIMITIVE ACCUMULATION, EMINENT DOMAIN, AND THE CONTRADICTIONS OF NEO-LIBERALISM

Abstract

One of the distinguishing characteristics of neo-liberal capitalism, as Paul Smith has argued, is the prominent role played by primitive accumulation – that is, the process through which social resources currently outside the circuit of capital are expropriated, often by the state, and thrust into circulation. The persistence of primitive forms of accumulation raises an important contradiction between neo-liberal philosophy, which posits a non-interventionist state, and actual-existing neo-liberalism, which relies heavily on the use of state power. But how is this contradiction negotiated through ideological labor? The issue of ‘eminent domain abuse’ – most recently dramatized in the controversy over the Supreme Court's Kelo v. New London decision – provides a good opportunity to explore this question. To this end, this article begins with a brief history of how the power of eminent domain – initially a tool for bringing private property into the public commons – was drafted into the service of primitive capital accumulation. The article then turns to a discussion of how primitive accumulation by eminent domain has been legitimized in two important court cases – Berman v. Parker and, most recently, Kelo v. New London. A concluding section will discuss how the recent controversy over eminent domain not only reveals fissures in the neo-liberal movement but also presents an opportunity to rebuild collective resources plundered by previous histories of primitive accumulation.