The evidence provided by the new paper is itself useful in support of Marx and Engels theory, but itself suffers from a similar failure to analyse the earlier period of capitalist development in its historical specificity. It too treats of wages as determinant of living standards in a period when wages were, in fact, only paid to a small proportion of society, the vast majority being direct producers, and independent commodity producers and peasants, not wage labourers. It places far too much stress upon the process of enclosure in the early period of capitalist industrial production, which arises first in the towns.
The early enclosures by landlords, are mainly of common lands, not of the individual plots used by free-holding peasant producers, although the former impacts the latter, who lose the common lands previously used for grazing, hunting, and wood gathering. The early enclosure of these common lands, is partly a consequence of rising populations, enabling landlords to rent out additional lands, but also a result of an increased demand for English wool, which results in former common land being turned over to sheep grazing. This in itself is an indication of a prior capitalist industrial development, which brings about the increased demand for wool.
Engels notes,
"The instrument that gradually brought about this revolution in price formation was industrial capital. Rudiments of the latter had been formed as early as the Middle Ages, in three fields — shipping, mining, and textiles. Shipping on the scale practiced by the Italian and Hanseatic maritime republics was impossible without sailors, i.e., wage-laborers (whose wage relationship may have been concealed under association forms with profit-sharing), or without oarsmen — wage-laborers or slaves — for the galleys of that day. The guilds in the ore mines, originally associated workers, had already been converted in almost every case into stock companies for exploiting the deposits by means of wage-laborers. And in the textile industry, the merchant had begun to place the little master-weaver directly in his service, by supplying him with yarn and having it made into cloth for his account in return for a fixed wage — in short, by himself changing from a mere buyer into a so-called contractor."
(Supplement to Capital III)
And, Engels explained why its in those spheres where the organic composition of capital is high, that capitalist production first arises. Its in those areas where the direct producer first fails because they cannot reproduce their means of production. All of them are able to reproduce their own labour-power, however, from their own small plots, even in the towns.
"For the artisan is himself still a bit of a peasant — he not only has a vegetable and fruit garden, but very often also has a small piece of land, one or two cows, pigs, poultry, etc."
(ibid)
So, its in those spheres where either a lot of material, or else more expensive materials, are required, relative to labour, that capitalist production first starts, as merchants who previously sold it to the direct producer, now provide it free, but now appropriate the end product in exchange for just a wage paid to the producer. Over time, as Lenin describes, in relation to Russia, these producers must spend all their time on this industrial, production, and have no time to continue to engage in any kind of agricultural production on their own small plots. They must now buy this food from commodity producing peasants in the market. Its only after a considerable period of such industrial capitalism in the towns that the markets for these agricultural products that become of a size that makes the invasion of agriculture by capital worthwhile, and possible.
The authors of the new paper say,
“Marx stressed the transition from feudalism to capitalism. He argued that after the disappearance of serfdom in the 14th century English peasants were expelled from their land through the enclosure movement. That spoliation inaugurated a new mode of production: one where workers did not own the means of production, and could only subsist on wage labour. This proletariat was ripe for exploitation by a new class of capitalist farmers and industrialists.”
But, this is a misrepresentation of Marx's argument. There was undoubtedly some enclosure from the 14th century onwards, but, as described above, it was mostly of common lands. To describe this as some wholesale eviction of peasants, who, overnight, became landless labourers is ridiculous. Where would they have found employment as wage labourers? Why would landlords do this, when they already extracted surplus value, in the form of rent, from their peasants? On what basis did these landlords suddenly acquire the class consciousness of the capitalist producer, rather than the feudal landlord, which would lead them to turn their peasants into wage labourers? It is to put the cart before the horse, explaining changes in material conditions by the conscious actions of individuals rather than vice versa. It is the opposite of Marx and Engels' theory.
The early conversion of common land to land for sheep grazing by landlords, itself is not an indication of a conversion of landlords into capitalist farmers, but of them simply becoming commodity producers, supplying wool to expanding markets. Commodity producers existed for thousands of years without them being capitalists! The real period in which, enclosure starts to impact the peasantry, as they are ejected from their lands is from the 17th century onwards, as industrial capitalism in the towns begins to more rapidly develop the need for agricultural commodities, but this is more than 200 years after industrial capitalism had developed in the towns, and had begun the process of creating an urban bourgeoisie, which is the foundation for the development of bourgeois ideas.
No comments:
Post a Comment