Primitive Accumulation in Marxism
* Article: Primitive accumulation in Marxism, historical or transhistorical separation from means of production. By Paul Zarembka. Edited from The Commoner, September, 2001, Imagining the Future -- Revolutionising the Present, W. Bonefeld, ed., Autonomedia, New York, forthcoming. [May 30, 2006]
Abstract
"The Commoner for September 2001 is devoted to "Enclosures", i.e., the process of separation of laborers from any means of production so that they become free wage-laborers for the purposes of capitalist exploitation. This process is not a natural development, but rather the result of violent confrontations. It is a process not just having happened in the past, but is continuing to this day. That awareness is lacking in many discussions of social development, some even purporting to be Marxist recognizing the importance of class struggle. The Commoner is, therefore, to be commended for driving home the continuing importance of the issue. Nevertheless, the set of articles also includes a basic theoretical mistake, the mistake of presenting 'primitive accumulation' as if the concept is applicable for all times of capitalist development rather than just the process of initial transition from the feudal to the capitalist mode of production. In this commentary, we review the usage of 'primitive accumulation' centering the collection, and compare that usage to Marx's own, clear statements. We suggest that 'accumulation of capital' proper, without need for an adjective 'primitive', includes force and violence in achieving capitalist aims of separation of laborers from their means of production; there is no need to invoke 'primitive' to recognize this fact. The work of Rosa Luxemburg is consistent with our perspective. Lenin is partly responsible for distortion when he focused accumulation of capital on more production 1 , but he followed upon a certain ambiguity "New and important in the highest degree is Marx's analysis of the accumulation of capital, i.e. the transformation of a part of surplus value into capital, and its use, not for satisfying the personal needs or whims of the capitalist, but for new production" (Lenin, 1915, pp. 63-64). Parallel to his delimitation of accumulation of capital proper from including forceful separation, Lenin refers to 'primitive accumulation': "From the accumulation of capital under capitalism we should distinguish what is known as primitive accumulation: the forcible divorcement of the worker from the means of production, the driving of the peasants off the land, the stealing of communal land, the system of colonies and national debts, protective tariffs, and the like. 'Primitive accumulation' creates the 'free' proletarian at one pole, and the owner of money, the capitalist, at the other." (p. 64) Given that accumulation of capital proper is not to include separation, we can surmise that Lenin would agree with The Commoner's trans-historical usage of 'primitive accumulation' to refer to any time period."
Summary
From the reading notes of Michel Bauwens:
Enclosures are the process of separation of laborers from any means of production. Primitive accumulation of capital is related to this forceful separation during the transition from feudalism to capitalism (and should not be used for later periods). However, many commentators apply it all across the board, as a permanent feature of capitalism (and this insight is indeed crucial).
PZ says that though dispossession still occurs, the term is historical. The difference, and why it is called 'primitive', is that it is the condition for capital, not its result. To conclude that accumulation implies continued separation is true and important, but it should not be called 'primitive' accumulation.
In a reply, Werner Bonefeld writes that 'primitive' was a mis-translation from the German, that 'ursprunglich' actually means 'constitutive', and that this separation is constantly re-enacted.