CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON...
Transcript of CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON...
![Page 1: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
Working Paper 107
ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF CAPITALISM IN
AGRICULTURE.
Mihir Shah
Centre for Development Studies,
Ulloor, Trivandrum-695011
March, 1980
![Page 2: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
ON THE DEVELOPEET 02 GAPITIILMI IN AGRICULTURE
1. IKTRODUCTION
The debate concerning the development of capitalism in
agriculture has often tended, especially in India, to get bogged down
in a plethora of false 1 problematics'. This has happened essentially
because of the persistent adherence to a rather naive version of the
Harxist conception of this process. is a consequence, there has been
a preoccupation with a mechanical application of indices intended to
measure the extent of capitalist development at a -saint of time, with-
out taking into account the ,:ride variety of forms it may assume. This
variety of forms is precisely a reflection of the different strategies is able to emplc --to subordinate the labour-process to
capital employs - or more correctly,Lits control. Without an analysis
of these forms and an understanding of th_ir raison d' etre, it is
impossible to gain insight:7, into the complex of processes that under-
lies 1,":240 developent of in agriculture.
The Marxian vision of the dynamics of an .,rani an economy under
the influence of caaital is based on the expectation of a gradual
. , polarisation of the Ipeasantry'
/I - peasantry' /into two main classes - the capitalists
and tha prole tarians. dtated in very general terms, the argumen.
underlying such a view is that as capital penetrates agricu]tare, 117erc
would occur an accentuation of commodity production and of the social
division of labour. process of capital accumulation and difrorentia-
tion of the peasantry under the impact of com_netitiye market forces
would be set into motion. Rich peasant farms, larger and batter equipped
1/ This does not, of course, exclude the possibility of thoT ;)eing landless labourers in -ore-capitalism. Under oLo)italism, tiaey would be transformed intoV)rolet&rians in the new context of their employ-ment. dee n.16 for an elaboration of this point.
![Page 3: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
2/r I7_a= "Trot:; this an essay by de Girardia, "Locialism and Taxes", issue No.,/' of :*ournal :.eue Irh.einisch(: Zeitun?
l'ionomische .3.evl..e issued in T.J1-y from Hambul
'the marxist theory of capitalist production does not
reduce the development of capitalist production to the
simple formula: 'disappearance of the snail holding
before the as ir such a formula were a ::oy to the
understanding of modern economy. To study the agrarian
question according to Harx's method, we should not con-
find ourselves to the question of the future of small
scale farming; on the contrary, e should look fqr all
the changes wich agriculture experiences under the do-
mination of ca:italist - )roduetion. Te shoUld as!:: is
and in what 7ays is capital, taLdivz hold of agriculture,
rovolutionisin7 it, smashin' the old f. r of rroduction
and of -,,overla_z-nC establishing the nell forms which p' _ u
u scceed' r isky ( 1 89 9 ) pp , 2-3/
with resources would fin.1 themselves in a relatively advantageous
position as far as access to inputs, the.. optimal use and the possi-
bility of accumulation are concerned. They would, over time, fo-:•n.
the new capitalist class. For l)recisely the o,,pposite reasons through
the accumulation of disadvantages, the poor peasant farms would gradually
be reduced to the status of proletarians.
'.pile this very general presentation of thelIarxian view
correctly states tic lonr.;-run tendencies of the process, it must be
emphasised that the development of capitalism in agriculture is not
expected to occur in a unilinear fashion over time. There was an acute
awareness of this fact in Classical Harxism. As early aS 1850 Harx, in
a crituo of Girardints work, argued that under capitalism agriculture
is bound to oscillate 'oetween concentration and parcellisation.- Later
Lenin, in }1.4 3 C.7=77i'7 ot-Idy of the development of casitalism in Russia,
observed that "Capitalist por.trates into agri7ulture particularly
slowly and in extremely varied f rT7s (Lenin 1399 p,131). And finally
Kautshy who wrote :rith :;reat sophistication on ;110 quosUonl
![Page 4: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
It is to this question: that any analysis of the process of
the development of capitalism in agriculture must be centrally addressed.
In this paper we analT3e the principal reasons why the debate on this
issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the basis of
this analysis - which leads us into a more general discussion on the
methodology of studying the evolution of tae capitalist mode of pro-
duction - us try to arrive at some clues regarding the broad approach
that needs co be adopted in working on the problem.
2. 17.117 TI-172.,E ER:102S
750 can identify three broad reasons for the -,-)ersistence of tile
crude conception that capitalism in agriculture develops in a simple
unilinr manner over time:
a) the failure to appreciate fully the :i_71portance of certain Fe..:,.tures
specific to agriculture union imvly that "agriculture does not develop
accoring to the same p:,7ocos as industry; it Zollows laws of its own"
even though "both arc developing in the diection".(K .ntsky 1899 p.2)
b) the failure to recogni:,e the significance of the distinction
Marx Droporx:d between "the formal and real subsumption of labour under
capital'. (Marx- 1976 rap. 1019--1033)
c) the failure to perceive the implications of differences in the
concrete historical setting in which capitalis7 develops in agricul-
ture, i.e. an inability to reckon with the diversity of situutio:Is in
which capitalism has developed historically. Mile this diversity
woul(I not negate the general long-run tendencies 0; capitalist develop-
ment, it would make - .the forms of its manif,j,station extremely varied.
![Page 5: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
All three errors have led to mistakes even in the formulation
of Ude o.uostions to be asked, quite abart from the nature of the
answers provided.
3. THE '.3PECIICTT7 213:ICULTUflE
Hautsy (1F399) in analysin the currents and tendencies which
thwart the process of concentration' first discusses those which
operate in both industry and agriculture. Lore he mentions tho and shows how
enormous reserves of resistance" of the netty-producers,/the 'huner
and overwork orolon,r; their death-agony to ex.trome limits". Also 'the
conscious political suiport of the State, which attempts to retard the
jisintegration of the middle strata." But Lautsky adds in ac:riculturo
other tendencies oT)erato, which do not appear in industry, :and the
question is thus Euch more comolicat,:d' C2.30). Let us turn to en
examin-tion T-ctorq,
in his anal7sis of capitalist devo )pmont distincuishod
b‘etween trio move:Its in the process of c .Di Gal accu - con,
contration and centralisation. The point of ti:.; distinction is to
focus on a form that the 1)rocess of concetration tes - vizn
tralisation. For 'the am ple concentration of the M1113 of 1produ:Jtio-a
and the command over labour ... is identical with accumulation". But
centralisation "is concentration of c:1-bitals already formed, destruction
of their individual injepon-cnco, expropriation of critali;:lt by
:-•_?italist, transformation of many n 1 into fan lar:e
This --a•ocess only pressuposcs a chant-0 in the distrib:Ition of
already available and already functioning capital" (lIarx ic,;76, -2.777).
![Page 6: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
in t';is con-t.::xt, to the problems that may arise
in the process of centralisation in agriculture. Narx had shown in
Volume III of Caital,llow private property in land under capitalism
ac is a a barrier to the real subordination of labour to capital.
He argued that 'the eroc!nditure of money-o-itr,a for the purchase of
land, thon, in not .?.n investment of agricultural capital. It is a
cL:crease protant)in the caDital which small peasants can employ in their
o,Tn sphere of production's (harx, 139d, o.810). Also "in large-scale
agriculture, and large estats operating on a capitalist basis,
ownership likewise acts, as a barrier, because it limits the tenant
farmer in his productive investment of capital, which in the final
analysis benefits not him, but the landlord" (Narx 18.W„ p.812).
iCantsy shone farther the difficulties 7)rivate property in land creates
in the of contr^aisation by =1-1-inf; it difficult to form a
large, continuous surf '.ce area for cultivation. In countries linere
the whole of the land is occupied, a larger continuous arca can only
be obtained 137 buyin:; up the neighbouring al land. Thus both
the spatial fixity of land as also the rigidity of the land market
(partly due to the tenacity, deriving from she factors we mentioned
earlier, with uhich the small producers stick to their land) sot
limits to the centralisation process.- 3
Capital, of course trios to get around this problem in varioun
ways. An i portant c.rls-quericu_ ;4' this is th'it-
the development of capitalism in agriculture not necessarily be
reflected in a higher concentration of operated land area although
:217 The most stark iklustration of the nays in which c:mital strives to overcome this 'tenacitTlis, of course, the British Enclosure Hovement.
![Page 7: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
the latter does usually accoLpany the former. This error, repeatedly
warned against by Lenin and Kantsky (see especially Lenin (1915) which
is among Lenins most important writings on the agrarian question), is
made by a number of non-iTarxists and even some Marxists /see Chandra
(1974) and its criticism in Sau (1976) 7. Thus Lenin (1915) argues
that what is important is the scale of production and not the acreage,
given the possibilities of intensive cultivation in agriculture. Thus
data on difference in the value of the output and the degree of concen-
tration of non-land assets (livestock, seeds, fertilisers, access to
irrigation, machinery, 'credit' in general), as also differences in
land quality, must supplement those on lend area operated, if a more
accurate picture of differentiation is to be obtained.
Another important reason why the development of capitalism in
agricultuie may not be reflected in an increased concentration of land
ownership is provided by Chayanot (1925). In his major work, Peasant
Farm Organisation, Chayanor spends the first six chapters in outlining
the principles underlying the economic activity of th-..3 individual
peasant family. Chayanor admits in the seventh chapter that the
"analysis in all six preceding chapters was static because they were
dealing with static problems." (p.242). Even "the process of demo-
graphic differentiation which depends on biological family growth is,
in essence, not new and is, essentially speaking, static" (p.257).
In the seventh chapter, however, Chayanov deals with questions
of a dynamic nature and acknolwedges that the Drocesseaof-capitaList
concentration. and of the proletarianisation of the Russian peasantry
are occurring. He reiterates Lenin's point that "these social processes
should be sought out, not by means of classifying sown areas and so on,
![Page 8: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
but by direct analysis of capitalist factors in the organisation
of production" (p.255). Moreover, lie- argues that concentration of
capital may often be vertical rather than horizontal. He alaims that
"this form of concentration in agricultural production is characteristic
of almost all young agricultural countries, which produce mass uni-
form produce for distant, mainly export markets".(p.263). By vertical
concentration, Chayanov implies a process whereby
"repeating the stages in the development of industrial
capitalism, agriculture comes out of a seminatural
existence and becomes subject to trading capitalism
that sometimes in the form of very large scale trading
undertakings draws masses of scattered peasant farms
into its sphere of influence and, having bound those
small scale commodity producers. to the market, econo-
mically subordinates trn to its influence. By develop-
ing oppressive credit conditions, it converts the orga-
nisation'of agricultural production almost into a special
form of distributive office based on r., 'sweatshop system'"
(p.257).
He further adds: "Frequently, the trading machine,
concerned about a standard qffality in the commodity
collected, begins to actively interfere in the orga-
nisation of production, too. It lays down technical
conditions, issues seeds and fertilisers, determines
the rotation, and'turns its clients into technical
exacutthrs of its designs and economic plans
If to this we add in the most developed capitalist
countries, such as those in Forth America, widely
developed mortgage credit, the financing of farm
circulating capital, and the dominating part played
by capital invested in transport, elevator, irrigation
and other undertakings, then we have bofore us new ways
in which capitalism penetrates agriculture. These
ways convert thelfarmers into a labour force working
with other people's means of production" (p.262).
![Page 9: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
In these passages, Chayanov provides hints for the conceptu-
alisation of a process that has consid:rable importance in under-
standing the development of capitalism in a number of countries
(especially those with a colonial past) of the world today. The
process can be reformulated with greater rigour using Marx's
concept of the formal subsumption of labour under capital. Before
going into an elaboration of this concept, however, let us conclude
this section by mentioning the final and perhaps most important
argument against using figures on concentration of.lond ownership
to settle matters in this debate. This point is especially import-
ant because, like the previous one, it brings out the need to
discuss the precise logic of. the forms capitalist penetration of
agriculture takes, without restricting onsolf to a mechanical
application of indices to measure the d..velopment of capitalism.
The argument, first proposed by Kautsky (1899) and later
repeate,Ily emphasised by Lenin is that the emerging agrarian
capitalists very often fulfill their requirement of regular cheap
labour by making allotments of land to wage-labourers. This helps
ensure that the supply of labour is regular. In the figures on
concentration of land holdings this nay appear as- a decline in
inequality, while actual differentiation would, in all probability,
rise as a consequence.
As Lenin (1899a) argued "our literature frequently contains
too stereotyped an understanding of the theoretical proposition that
capitalism requires the free, landless labourer." (p.181). Actually
"it would not even be advantageous for the big landowners to force
out th small proprietors completely: the latter provide them with A/This 'bondage' is, of course, entirely a creation of the capitalist
class and should not be confused, as is often done, with feudal bondage. (we sh!,11 discuss this later in greater detail).
![Page 10: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
hand! For this reason the landowners and capitalists frequently
pass laws that artificially maintain the :mall peasantry. Petty
farming becomes stable when it ceases to compete with large-scale
farming, when it is turned into a supplier of labour-power for the
latter. The relations between large and small landowners••uomestill
closer to those of capitalists and proletarians" (Lenin 1899b, pp.96-7).
"The allotment holding rural worker is a type to be found in all
capitalist countries" (Lenin 1899b. p.181). In fact "an absolutely
propertyless agricultural labourer is a rarity, because in agriculture
rural economy, in the strict sense, is connected with household
economy. Whole categories of agrioultural wage-workers own or ;
have the use of land. when small production is eliminated too gredtly,
the big landowners tryto strengthen or revive it bythe sale or laase
of land' (Lenin 1899b -.P.136).
5/ In our view, these insights of Lenin, Kautsky and Chayanot-
into the processes that make up the basis for the development of
capitalism in agriculture and the varied forms that it might take,
represent a remarkably rich understanding of Marx's conceptualisation
of the process of capitalist development in general. In fact, one can
attempt a rigorous reformulation of these insights by incorporating them
into Marx's overall framewo'rk, utilising concepts which were not
available to Lenin, Kantsky and Chayanov. To this task we now turn.
Chayanor's work, of couise, remains an object of great controversy. We believe that his work, although open to criticism, contains many
. valuable insights.
![Page 11: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
10
4. TEE FORMAL AND REAL SUBSUMPTION OF LABOUR UND2R CAPITAL
Our attempt in this section will be to present, as clearly
as possible, Marx's distinction between the formal and real subsumption
of labour under capital. We further try to bring together the various
attempts made by Marx to conceptualise the transition to what he calls
a "specifically capitalist mode of production" (Marx 1976 Pp.1019-1038).
This is a task which can and must be performed because there is a
definite continuity and consistency in Marx's writings on this question
which is often not recognised. Moreover, with Marx's text "Results
of the Immediate Process of Production" becoming available in English
in 1976, we have been provided with a broad conceptual framework within
which this can be done.- In particular, we shall be considering
Parts 2-5 and the Appendix to the Penguin edition of Volume I of
Capital, Parts 4 and 6, esp.)cially Chapters 20 and 47 of Volume III
of Capital and the sections on the 'Original Accumulation of Capital'
in the Grundrisse (Marx 1973 especially pp.459-516).
(i) Capital
Our presentation like the categories involved has both a
logical and a historical aspect. Capital, as Marx points out, is
older than capitalism. Historically, capital emerges first in the
form of money - as merchants' or wuzets!. capital. - Money pcquiTing
the form of capital nresupposes a certain form of circulation. In
the direct form of circulation of commodities, Ci - M - C2, or selling
6 This text, originally planned as Part 7 of Volume I of Capital, was first published simultaneously in Russian and German in Vol.II of the Marx-Engels Archives (Moscow) in 1933. It was published for the first time in English as an Appendix to the Penguin edition of Volume I of Capital in 1976. This text contains t-14 clearest statement by Marx on the general form the capitalist mode of production takes when it first make its appearance.
![Page 12: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
40
1 I
I
11
one set of commodities to buy another qualitatively different set,
money does not function as capital. But money which appears in the
circuit M - C - M , is capital. ThusM-C-M is the general
formula for capital.
The production of use-values is the final goal of the circuit
C1-M-C2' The two extremes of the circuit are commodities of equal
value but qualitatively different use-values. The motivating force
behind the circuit M-CTM , however, is the production of exchange
values. The two extremes of the circuit are both money and thus not
qualitatively different use-values. But X' is greater than M,
surplus-value. Value is thus not only preserved in the process but
also expanded or valorised. This valorisation is the motive force of
the circuit M-C-N . It this M is now withdrawn from circulation by
spending it on commodities for the satisfaction of definite needs (con-
sumption), it ceases to be capital. For "the circulation of money as
capital is an end in itself, for the valorisation of value takes place
only within this constantly renewed movement. The movement of capital
is therefore limitless. As the conscious bearer (Trager) of this
movement, the possessor of money becomes a capitalist'. (Marx 1976,
pp.253-4).
(ii) Merchants Capital
The earliest capitalists, as we said, were the merchant and
us rer capitalists, who emerged before the capitalist mode of production
itself. In the precapitalist era, capital is restricted to ne sphere
of circulation. As Marx says in Volume III of Capital, 'merchant's
capital is originally merely the intervening movement between extremes
![Page 13: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
12
which it does not control, and between premises which it does not
create" (Marx 1894, .p.330). Merchant's capital, 'the oldest free
state of existence of capital", (p.325) is based on the principle
of cheap in order to sell dear. In such an epoch, "commer-
cial profit not only appears as outbar ainin and cheating,but also
largely originates from them".. Marx explains the basis of the
operation of merchants capital;
'it exploits the differences between the prices of
production of various countries ....goreover, it :.cts7
as a mediator between communities which still substan-
tially produce for use-value, and for whose economic
organisation the sale of ...products at their value,
is of secondary importance.... Merchants capital, when
it holds a position of dominance, stands everywhere
for a system of robbery, so that its development among
the trading nations of old and modern times is always
directly connected with plundering, piracy, kidnapping
slaves and colonial conquest; as in Carthage, Rome, znd
later among the Venetians, Portugese, Dutch etc."
(pp.330-1, emphasis ours).
That these observations of Marx are very well grounded on
actual historical experience is cJnfirmed by some of the most detailed
and ineisine work done on the history of merchants capital.-7/ The
implications of the discovery of the All Sea Route from Europe to
India via the Cape of Good Hope in 1498 and the subsequent "confron-
tation of the carracks, the caravans and the companies" (Steinsgaard,1973)
has been an important object of study among historians. Of particular
7 Our main point of reference here is Stoinsgaard (1973). But mention must be made of the generally (i.e. both historically and theoreti-cally) very significant work of Karl Polanyi and Frederic Lane as also the more specialised work of Charles Boxer, Ralph Davis, Meilink-lisalefso etc.
![Page 14: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
a
0
13
interest to us is the analysis of the essential character of the
Portugese Estado da India which entered an arena dominated by the
'peddling trade'. The peddling trade was subject to groat uncertainty.
The peddling merchant needing to make a decision about investments'
in distant markets, had to reckon with many unknown in his calculations
- the principal one being the cost of 'protection' and the risk of
complete or partial loss of stock resulting from the attack of robbers
8/ or other extortion.-
When the Portuese came in their main attempt was not to exploit
the All Sea Route for their own trading operations but to make profit
out of this high degree of uncertainty characterising the pre-
existing trading operations. They used their military control over
the sea to extract a 'tribute' from the Asian traders for the 'sale
of protection' to them (Land'sterminology). In principle, every Asian
trading ship had to be equipped with a Portugese pass, a 1 Cartazo'.
This was not only a source of income in itself, but also provided
the possibility of diverting an important part of the trade through
Portugese controlled towns, - Goa, Harmuz and the ports on the Gulf
of Cambay, being the most important. Thus, the administration of
organised violence was the principal source of income of the Estado
da India. This is confirmed by a scrutiny of its budgets for 1587 and
1607, which_clearly show that the main revenue source were customs
duties at ports. (iii) Capitalism
It is only when capital assumes control over the process of
Production or the labour process that one can speak, in the Marxist
/ - 'The pedlar might well have possessed the habit of thinking rationally but had no possibility pf making a rational calculation of -his costs in the- modern sense so long as the protection costs and the risks remained uipredictable and the market non-transparent" (steinsgaard 1973) To this relationship between the 'economic calculus' of an eLtel-i,rise and the broader environment in which it operates, we shall return in another context.
•
![Page 15: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
14
sense, of the advent of the capitalist mode of production. This
presupposes the emergence of a number of historical conditions. Under
these conditions Marx shows how surplus-value can emerge even in a
situation where equivalents (in terms of value) are exchanged for
equivalents. Surplus-value can now emerge only in one part of the not in the value of the commodity bou;lit because
circuit M-C-M viz. M-C and that tool, z equivalents are being
exchanged. As Marx argues:
"The change can therefore originate only in the actual
use-value of the commodity, i.e. in its consumption.
In order to extract value out of the consumption of a
commodity, our friend the money-owner must be lucky enough
to find within the sphere ef circulation, on the market,
a commodity whose use-value possesses the peculiar property
of being a source of value, whose actual consumption is
therefore itself an objectification of labour, hence a
creation of 7aluc. The possessor of money does find
such a special commodity on the market: the capacity
for labour, in ether words labour-power.
We mean by labour-power, or labour-caoacity, the aggre-
gate of those mental and physical capabilities existing
in the physical form, the living personality, of a human
being, capabilities which he sets in motion whenever he
produces a use-value of any kind." (iiarx 1976 p.270).
One can summarise the conditions necessary forthe emergence
of the capital-labour relation, as follows:
1. The owner of labour-power must, as a free commodity proprietor
be able to sell his labour-power for a definite limited period of
time - "for if he were to•sell it in a lump, once and for all, he
would be selling himself, converting himself from a free man into a
slave, from an owner of a commodity into a commodity.' (Marx 1976 p.271).
![Page 16: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
15
2. The owner of labour-power must be dispossessed of commodities otherwise
which wouldLallow him to produce and sell other commodities asan-
indePendent coEmodityroducer. This is the economic coercion which
comp _els the proletarian to sell his labour-power.-
3. On the other hand, the capitalist, must have unde2r his command
sufficient resources to be able to "cease to be a worker himself and
(begin) to concern himself entirely with directing work and organising
sales" (Marx 1976 p.1027). A minimum scale of production is necessary
for capitalist production to be viable "to furnish the objective
conditions not only for the production of the products or values
required to reproduce or maintain living labour capacity, but also
for the absorption of surplus labour - to supply the objective material
for the latter" (Marx 1973, p.463).
4. Capital is eaegto 1-elation which involves not the direct
appropriation of alien labour -is slavery and serfdom do, 1A:it the
buying of labour power on the market. The process of exploitation
is gradually"stripped of every patriarchal, political or even
religious clyake and is converted into "a relationship of sale and
purchase, a purely (Marx 1976, p.1027).
This is in contrast to the serf and the slave who had to. be !extra -economicallyt coerced, prevented access to means of orocluctien, in order to force thorn to work for the lords- for, in principle, without the operation of such a compulsion they could eke out a living even without worli.ng for any lord. The development of capitalism progressively rules out such an option. This is not. to say that tne.proletarian does not experionce any extra-economic coercion - it is only to argue that such coercion-, has a different sigificance for the prole-tarian on the one hand, and the serf and slave, on the other. See the trite-:staterient of Sir James Steuart which Marx quotes: "Mon were then greed to work because they were .slavos of others; men are now forced to work because they are slaves of their necessities" (Marx 1976, footnote 25 pp.300-01).
![Page 17: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
16
5. Finally, what confronts the proletarian, "must present
itself as value, and must regard the positingof value, solf-realisation,
money making, as the ultimate purpose not direct consumption or the
creation of use-value" (Marx 1973 p.464). Marx goes on to illustrate
the point with a number of examples in the Grundrisse. The central
argument is that 'Labour as mere performance of services for the satis-
faction of immediate needs has nothing whatever to do with capital
since that is not capital's concern." (p.272). The capitalist rela-
tionship implies on the contrary. that labour is "capital-positing,
capital creating labour, wage labour" (p.463). Thus free-day labourers
encountered in pre-capitalism, are not wage-labourers in this strict
sense. Their services aro sometimes in fact bought for production
and not rarely consumption,
'but, firstly, even if on a large scale, for the
production only of direct use values, net of values;
and secondly, if a nobleman e.g. brines the free worker
togs her with hiz serfs, .irer_ if he re-sells a part of
the workers product, and the freo worker creates value
for him, then his exchange takes place only for the
superfluous 5roduct7 !7.nd only for the sake of super-
fluity, for luxury consumption, is thus at bottom only
a veiled purchase of alien labour for immediate con-
sumption or as use-value' (p.469).
The emergence of these conditions which Ieads'ultimli;ely, to th,, •
mode of production', advent7:pf-,a capi-tetlist is the result of a long
period of historical development. Let us mo-o on to a discussion
of Marx's attempts to analyse the processes involved in this, great
transformation.
![Page 18: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
17
(iv) Tho Transition
We first elaborate Marx's distinction between the formal
and real subsumption of labour under capital. Wc then attempt to
give these concepts greater analytical and historical depth by in-
corporating into the discussion, Marx's exposition of the initial forms
of capitalist production in Part 4 of Volume I of Capital. Finally,
we try to place Marx's analysis of "the two ways' of capitalist develop-
ment in the context of the distinction between formal .71nd real sub-
sumption.,
10/ Before we proceed, however, one clarification is n.:ccosary.--
Marx used the term mode of production in two distinct meanings the
difference between which can be :)erceived by reforrinq to the context
in which the term is used. The more common use of• the term by Marx . -
is in the sense of oTocha of production or broad periods in history,
which is to be found in the entire range of his -zritings. But in
certain contexts Marx used the term more literally, meaning by it
the process of production or the labour process. For example in
Capital Volume I Marx writes: "Hitherto, in dealing with the production
of surplus-value in the above form, we have assumed that the mode of
production is given and invariable." (Marx 1976, pp.431-2), obviously
meaning by mode of production, the labOur P rocess Again, in his
critique of private property in land under capitalism in Volume III
of Capital, ho says: "where the capitalist mode of production h,-.s a
limited development....agriculture,is no longer, or not yet, subject
to the capitalist mola_21:nroduction, but rather to ono handed down
4e owe this to Banaji (1977a) In fact, our overall approach been ,reatly stimulated by tat paper and owe much to it.
![Page 19: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
18
from extinct forms of society" (Marx,: 1894, Pp.811-2, emphasis ours). from
VA.Lds cleart the cont;.!xt that in thu_secon. 1:_case made,!,:f production
IfJans labour process. •
That this distinction appears in places • whore Marx is
analysing the initial forms of capitalist development is not sur-
prising. In fact, as we shall see presently tho distinction has
significance precisely in such a context.
The existence of the two stages of the formal and real
subsumption of labour under capital was hinted at by Marx in Volume I
of Capital itself. Thus he writes:" At first capital subordinates
labour on the basis of the technical conditions within which labour
has been carried on up to that point in history. It does not there-
fore directly change the node of production" (Marx 1976, p.425).
Mode of production in cic!-.rly used in the sense of labour process.
Again:Th specifically capitalist mode of production (is) a mode of
production which, along with its methods, means and conditions, arises
and develops spontaneously on the basis of the formal subsumption
Of labour under capital. This formal subsumption is then replaced
by a real subsumption" (Marx 1976 p.645). Lenin, whose reading of
Marx was one of the richest anon Marxists, rade quite a perceptive
anticipation of this distinction. As he says, "capital always takes
the technical process of production as it lands it, and only subse-
quently subjects it to technical transformation" (Lenin, 1895, p.466).
And, finally, we may mention Maurice Dobb who, again in anticipation,
summarised the distinction remarkably well: 'what the industrial
revolution represented Tms a transition ifrom an early and still immature
![Page 20: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
19
stage of Capitalism, where the pro-capitalist potty mode of
production had been penetrated by the influence of capital, sub-
ordinated. to capital, robbed of its independence as on economic
form 'but not yet completely transformed, to a stage where capitalism,
on the basis of technical change, had achieved its own specific pro-
duction process restin on the collective large-scale production
unit of the factory...." (Dobb, 1945, p.19).
Marx's own clearest elaboration of the distinction is to be.
found in his 'Results of the Lanediate Process of Production". The
central insight which Marx develops is that "capital subsumes the
labour process as it finds it, that is to say, it takes over an
02cte .__,Tlal2?ourraessa, developed by different and more archaic
modes of production." (Marx 1976 p.1021)., ThiS phase in the deve-
lopment of capitalism, in which the technological basis of production
does riot change, Marx calls the formal subsumption of inbour under
capital. It is the general form of every capitalist process of
production, at. the same time, however, it can ')o found ns cLIELcular
form alongside the specificallz capitalist :::ode of oroductior. in its
developed form, because although the latter entails the 2e:mer, the
converse does not necessarily obi:n.in i.e. the formal subsumption
• can be found in the absence of the specifically capitalist mode of
preduction7" (ibid., p.1019). The specifically capitalist Mode of
• production involves the real subsumptien of labour under capital.
The formal always Jrucedes the real ''although the second form, the
more highly developed one, can provide the foundations for the intro-
duction of the firat.in new branches of industry" (ibid.p.1025).
![Page 21: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
20
The contrast between ',-;he two lies in the fact that the
specifically capitalist node of production not only transforms
the situations of the various agents of production, it also r:rireiu-
toniPQs their actual mode of labour and the real nature of the
labour process as a whole" (ibid., p.1021). "The social forces of
production of labour are now developed, and with lane-scale production
comes the direct application of science and technology". Moreover,
"capital must increase the valUe of its operations to the point %.there
it assumes social dimensions, and so sheds its individual character
entirely" (ibid. p.1035). Also, "production for production's sake',
production as an end. in itself - does indeed cone on the scone with
the formal subsumntion of labour under capital. It makes its apperance
as soon as the immediate 71.1i'l)020 of production is to produce as much
surplus-value as soon as the ,achange -value of the
product becomes the deciding lector. But this inherent tendency
of capiteieIst p.eoduction Gees net become adequately realised - it
does not become indis;)ensable, and that also noarle
indispensable - until the specific mode of ca-dtalist Production
and. hence the real subsum. tier of labour under caDital ha$ beco:.le
a reality.' (ibid. p.10.37). And finally, with the advent ;11' the real
subsumption phase, relative surolus value gradually reele.eee
surplus value as the -orincipal source of capitalist profit.. Tin s,
in addition to surplus value extraction through lengthening
working day, lowering wages intensifying work (absolute sur7)11.-.3 -
value), capital increasingly relies on producing profits by raising
the productvity of labour through the deployment of machinery in large-
scale factory production. •
![Page 22: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
21
This' distinction proposed by Marx acquires greater
analytical 'and historical depth if we place it in the context of
his own discussion on the evolution of the capitalist mode of
production in Part 4 of Volume 1 of Capital.
(v) 922221:2119/3....;_amdManuturo,
According to Marx, "a llrge number of workers working
together, at tho same time, in one place (or, if you like in the field of labour) in order to produce the ,,sane sort of commodity under the command of the same capitalist,
constitutes the starting-point of capitalist produbtion. This is true
both historically and conceptually" (Marx 1976, p.439). This is What
Marx calls cooperation and 'that form of cooperation which is based
on division-of labour assumes its classical shape in manufacture."
(ibid. p.455). But with regard to the mode of production itself,
manufacture can hardly be distinguished, in its earliest stages, from
the handicraft trades of the guilds, except by VIA) greater number of
workers simultaneously employed by the same individual capital"
(ibid. p.439 emphasis ours) /Eode of production is used, as is evident
in the sense of labour-procos7. Even so, manufacture provides the
foundations for largo-scale industry based on machinery which
transformed the archaic labour process,
0 A very plausible synthesis, than, could be proposed suggesting
• that the formal subsumption stage corresponds broadly to the periods
of cooperation and manufacture, i.e. the period prior to the advent
of large-scale industry the latter being tho, period of real eubsum7ction.
This is, in fact, ghat Dobb hinted at (seo above) and what
Ernest Mandel (in his introduction to the Appendix of the Penguin cdn.
of Vol.I of Capital, Marx 1976, p.944) and Ben Pine (1978) do propose.
same
![Page 23: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
22
Howe'vr- one warning is necessary - it would be incorrect to say
that in the period when the technological basis of production remains
unchanged no relative surplus value is produced. In fact, as Marx
himself argues, both. cooperation and division of labour do raise the
productivity of labour. Moreover, it must be emhasised that the
period of the real subordination of labour to capital is also the period
when the production of absolute surplus-value receives a great
impetus. Marx's Chapter 15 of Vol.1 of Capital, contains a. -cost
graphic account of precisely thishonemem.rILI
The Two ways
Let us finally come to Harx's attempt to capture the
transition to capitalism in terms of -the 'two ways' in Volume -3 of
Capital. Accordin_; to Marx, way No.1 means that
1 'the producer
b: cones merchant an.. capitalist.... This is the really
revolutionising path (Harx 1894-, P.334).' The
master heaver for instance, buys his wool or yai'n
himself and sells his cloth to the merchant, .instead
of receiving wool from the merchant piecemeal and
workinL; for him together with his journeymen., The
elements of production pass into the production process
as commodities bought by himself. And instead of pro-
ducing for some individual merchant, or for 5--3cified
customers he produces for the world of trade. The
producer is himself merchant.... As soon as menu- •
facture gains sufficient strength, and Particularly
large-scale industry, it creates in its turn a market
for itself, by capturing it through its coumodities.
At this point commerce becomes the servant of indus-
trial production, fog which continUbd expansion of the
![Page 24: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
• 23
marl.:at bece7aef3 a vitl necessity. 11;ver more
extended mass production floods the ed.sting
market and thereby works continuously for a still
greater expansion of this market for breaking out
of its limits. - Uhat restricts this mass production
is not commerce (in so far as it expresses the exist-
ing demand), but the magnitude of employed capital
and the level of development of the productivity of
labour. The industrial capitalist always has the
world market bef_cre. him, compares, and must con-
stantly compre, his own cost-prices with the market--
prices at home. . and throughout the world." (Marx,
1894, P-336).
Way No:2'meanS that; "The merchant establishes
direct sway over production... This system presents
everywhere an obstacle to the real ea- italist mode of
.rodiction and gees under with its development. Uith-
out revolutionising the node of production, it only
worsens the condition of the direct producers, turns
into mere wa3e-workers and prolotarians...'
(Marx, 1894, PD-334-5) (emphases ours).
The use of the term r real capitalist mode of production'
is striking, being consistent with the terminology of the text
"Results...". Also node of production is once again used by
Marx (in the second case) in the sense of labour process.
An important discussion on the precise content of the two
ways occured in the debate on the transition from feudalism to
capitalism which followed tine publication of Dobb's 'tudies in
the Development of CapitaliEd."
Dobb argued in the 'Studies' that the esentil fHatur
?:'ay No. 1 was that'the capitalists rose from th,3 ranks of tie p:Aty
![Page 25: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
24
producers, through their internal differentiation, rather than
being constituted by the former merchants which would be 'Tay No.2.
Jwcezy, however, argued that this interpretation was faulty and that
Marx's principal airs in contrasting 7:Tay No.1 with Way No.2 was to
contrast the launching of full-fledged capitalist enterprises with
the slow development of the putting-out system. There is no indi-
cation that ho was concerned about producers' ..rising from the ranks".
Thus 'Jay No.1 'might equally well mean that the producer, whatever
his background, starts out as both a merchant and an employer of
wage-labour" (Sweezy, Dobb et.al 1976 p.54). In support of the
la:tter contention he cites Nef's examples .of 'new' industries like
mining, metallurgy, brewing, sugar .X-Pfiling soap, alum, glass and
s alt-making.
ho:rev,:z, felt that "one of Dobb's most. valuable
contributions to historical science is' that he sought the genesis
of industrial capitalists not among the 'haute bourgeoisie' but in
what was taking form within the class of the petty-commodity producers
thouselves in the process of freeing themselves from feudal land
property.' (ibid, p.87). But -.:he added that Dobb was mistaken in
including within 'jay Z0.1, the .:ath followed by those petty producers,
who aSter becoming caPitalists set up production on a putting out
basis, agreeing with-",vreezy that the latter was indeed the core of
':'Tay No.2.
Takahashi's contribution was lucid and clarifying. Both
the points he makes are valid and important. In the conteNt of :lectern
Europe, 'Dobb's emphasis on the class struggle between the emergent
capitalist class and a group of the 'haute bourgeoisie' originating
![Page 26: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
25
in the feudal land.aristocr:,cy, the merchant and financial mono-
polists (exemplified in the struggle bettrccn the Independents and
the Royalists in England and the Jacobins and Girondins in France)
11 is crucial.--/ But for Marx clearly Way No:1 was 'revolutionary' also
because it led to a revolution in the technological basis of pro- .
duction and so the putting-out system can have no place in it, as
Suoozy and Takahashi argue. In fact, Suoozy is further right in
pointing to certain cases where the putting-out sytem may be obviated
and a capitalist ontorpriso with wage-labour may be :got up from the
12/ start.—
(vii) The Synthesis
_The main reason for our getting into such an elaborate
discussion of Marx's tuo ways is to show that Maxx's preoccupation
in this context is no different from that in the discussion of the
formal and real subsumption of labour under capital. His main interest
remains understanding the :rocess of the transition to the specifi-
It must be recognised, houovor, that the class configurations involved in 'bourgoois revolutions' can vary - e.g.,in Prussia and Jason, capitalism arose on the basis of a collusion, not conflict with Absolutism.
Dobb himself provides evidence confirming this:'....in a number of now industries such as cooper, brass and ordnance, oaper and powder making, alum and soap, and also in mining and in smelting, the tchniquo of production was sufficiontly transforod as a ' result of recent invention to require an initial capital that was anito beyond the capacity of the ordinary craftsman. In consequence, enterprises were here being launchod by promoters on a partnership, or joint-stock basis, and hired labour was beginning, to be employed by them on a considerable scale.' (Dobb 1945, p:124).
cally capitalist mode of production. And the two analyses can be
reasonably reconciled by arguing that the predominance of 7Tar No.2
11
12
![Page 27: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
26
in a historical situation could imply an extremely protracted
existence of the merely formal subsunption of labour under capital.
It is true that both ways in general begin with this phase (with
the exception, perhaps, of 'new' industries of the kind mentioned
above), but way No.1 historically demonstrates a greater potential
for the transition to the real subordination of labour to capital.
This is Marx's own sug:;cstion in the passage from Vol.3 of Capital
ouoted above.
Moreover, ono can argue that 'Jay No.2 give us, in a sense, greater
a description of what, in Z. • or lesser degrou, is the formal sub-
ordination of labour to capital. The accentuation of the control
exercisa by the merchant over the labour proces through the putting-
out system loads gradually, over time, to his emergence as the
immediate owner of the process sf pr3duction. This process may,
of c3uroo, he quite protracte:. and nay involve, in the initial
phases, only partial domination by the merchant. However, over time,
as the potty-producer increasingly loses his independence, ono may
sneak of the formal subsumption of labour under capital. In this
Phase...the potty-producer (torn craftsman or rural Peasant) becomes
totally dependent on the nerchant(Who is usually also a money-lend r, for
IP (i) purchase of raw-uaturials for production
(ii) marketing of the final products 0
(iii) oven the purchase of the qeans of subsistence oyez time.
In fact the merchant-moneylendr capitalist soon dictates not only
what is to be produced - the auality and quantity but also how it is •
to be produced (recall Chayanor's description and see Banaji (1977a)
![Page 28: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
27
for a characterisation of this articulation - 13p.32-6). It is this
detailed intervention in the process of prDduction and the complete
control that he exercises over it, that earns the 1:lurch-Int the chara-
cterisation of the immediate owner of the process of production. The
petty-producer now is reduced to the status of a semi-prolJtarian.
The price he roceives nay be considered a concealed wage. As Banaji
puts it
'the social process of production incorporating the
immediate labour-process of the small peasant enter-
prise is goIerned by the aims of capitalist production,
namely by the compulsion to produce surplus-valuo.
Within this social process of production dominated by
the capitalist enterprise, the economic conceptions
of the small households, and their fornal possossion
of a portion of the me:1ns of subsistence, antur as
regulating elements only as a function of the law of
surplus.-value uction. The patriarchal notions of
accounting, which dissociate the range of acceptable
markot-prices from the price of production and/ No-
nomeus internally subsisdised roproduction of labour-
power which from the perspective of the process as
whole, ensures a sale of labour-power below its value,
enable capital to depress wages 'in a fashion unequalled
elsewhere', as Engels noted (Englos to Babel, Dec.11,
1834)" gbid, p.347
The technological basis of Production remains unchanged in
this process, thu principal source of capitalist profit remaining
absolute surplus-vlue c.traction. Thu ability of capital to continue
to extract surplus-value on the old technological basis reduces the
incentive to revolution:-dse the lab)ur-procoss, to posit itp self-
determined labour-pmocess. This does not, however, mean that this
![Page 29: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
28
process knous no limits. In foot, there oporato vory dofinito
forces that circumscribo the ability and reduce the incentive for
capital to continuo in this form. `re may mention hero the supply
of labour, the availability of noir technology, the level of develop-
rent of the working class movement and the competition among capitalists influencing
in short, all factors . the balance of forc s in the_ capital-
13/ labour relationship.-- '
*Lyon so, the significance of our discussion so far derives
from the fact that the formal subsunption of labour under capital
based on !Ta-y No.2 can be an extremely long phase in the; dovolopment
of capitalism. This appears to be ospecially true. in present-day
Idovolopingt countries uhich have passed through a period of colonial
role. This is so for a variety of historical reasons, the prodominant
one being that the seeds of capitalism uoro semi in those countries
from the outside, as it war:), and in the main by foreign trading
companies. .:(3 are, of course, not suggesting an exclusive reliance
on "-!ay No.2. As wo said earlier, even grouth baood on Tiny No.1 begins
typically with the formal subordination of labour. to capital. But as
Dobb very rightly says; Thu tus roads of which Marx sooaks do not
remain distinct for the uhole their course, but often norgo for
a distance and at places intersect." (Dobb 1945, P.124). That uc,.
thereforo, seek to omphasiso is the nrotractod nature of the plias°
of the forma subordination of labour to ca-oitnl in which 'cly No.2
predominates and there ovun development initially based on I:Tay 1;3.1 •
13/ is Loo)rtant unox-olorod area of
rosoorch. Nontion Li-:LL of Ben rine (-1973), 'cane (1980) and Burustein (1979). Soo especially Bortistoir'edotailod descri-ption of the. forms the struggle is assuming in Africa on p.432 and 'Ale references he give. in footnote 29. ',To nay olso mention hero the Suptombor 1979 issue of tho Cambild.go Jou=1 of .j;conoylics which contains a symposium on the subject which 1:rings out the important role class struggle plays in fashioning the form Capitalist production. tapes :von of to tlw roal subordination of labour to ca vital has occurred.
![Page 30: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
•
29
14 sometimes merges with Way No.2.--/ Finally, w.o.may notethat this phas( could
hncompass within it a variety of forms of exploitation that capital
uses to subordinate the labour-procel::; to its control.
Before we can go on to consider the analytical significance
of these observations, we must first try to establish the historical
importance of the phenomenon we speak of. The evidence we present
here is based on a number of studios being conducted on the develop-
ment of capitalism in various countries, especially those belonging
to Latin America and Africa.
5. THE EVIDENCE
For Latin America, the best conceptualisation of the phenomenon
is that of Fernando Bello (in a review of Bartra's work), while
the best description of the more important mechanisms involved is
provided by Rudolfo 6tavonhagen (1978). Both refer to Ilexican
agriculture.
Roger Bartra for Mexico and Juan Villarreal for Argentina
described a phenomenon which they feel can be regarded as indicating
the presence of what they call a 'simple mercantile mode of production
Bartra writes: " - the peasant ... is exl)loited by capital (by moans
of the market), but at the same time is the direct agent of this explo
tation in the sense that he labors under non-capitalist conditions of a
production." (quoted in Harrla 1976, D.3). Rellp/: inZrevieu of
Bartrats work criticises his conceptualisation of the process in terms
close enough to our oun to warrarit a.full quote. Rollo: says:
14T Just one example of this is the reported phenomenon of capitalist in Indian Green Revolution areas going out of direct cultivation and taking up money lending.- (Sau, 1976).
•
15/ For Latin American studies we have relied heavily on the review article by H.,zric (1978).
![Page 31: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
30
"Hade of production has to be distinguished from the
category of form of Production, w:lich expresses a
specific social relation of production (share-cropping,
different types of tenant farming, artisan workshops,
independent producers associated with capitalist
firms, etc.). TheJe forms of production can contain
elements of pre-calitalist nodes of production, but they part
aretol-the capitalist node of production and perform
specific functions within this system. In this case,
Ile must speak of the articulation of forms of produ-
ction within the capitalist mode of production, which
assigns to these forms their rank and importance,
My criticism of Bartra is that not only does he
confuse mode of production ,f!ith form of production,
he also sees a node of production that does not
exist.' (quoted in Ha:eris 1978, p.4).
Starenhagen's contention that "the maintenance and oven
the constant re-creation of ',file peasant economy is functional for
the ca4talist system" (Stavenhagen 1978, p.35) :ley be an over-
statement, but he Makes a neat analysis of the mechanisms that
operate in such a situation. Firstly, the non-agricultural sector
is not growing fast enough to absorb the entire pool of labour produced
by the disintegration of the 1-,)ensant economy'. Also for the labour
force itself, the 'peasant economy' is an important re4orve to fall
back upon given the uncertain and unstable character of the labour
market. But more crucially, the 'peasant economy' reproduces the
labour force for the capitalist system at a low cost. This in turn
allows the capitalists to keep the wages low. The 'peasant economy'
provides a permanent reserve oft cheap labour for the capitalists.
![Page 32: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
31 -
The very same processes are emphasised La Tassig (1978)
which is a study of the development of ca- ltalist agriculture in the
Cacua Valley in Colombia. Solon Berriclou;hfor Chile and Veronica
Bennholdt-Dromsen for Latin America gs a whole, also argue that the
rural workerst continuing dependence on land is a reflection of the
fact that acute conditions of unemployment leave no other means ibr
survival. As Bennholdt-Thomsen says: "The ties to the land today do
not stem from extra-economic pressures, rather the situation of the
jobs market. ?What Lehin describes in the case of pre-revolutionary
Russia is valid for contemporary Latin America' (quoted in Harris
1978 p.10). And Luisa Pare', in a study of Mexidan sugar, argues that
the control that the sugar mills exercise over the small-holding
peasant producing sugar-cane, renders the latter 'proletarian disguised
as a peasant' (quoted in Harris 1978 p.9). These peasants work on their
own land but are financed and organised by private or state capitalists.
They sell Their cane to the capitalists who finance them and give them
1 just enough to enable t
6/ hem to reproduce their labour-power.
Although marred by a number of ambiguities in his theoretical
conceptions, Anthony 7ineons (1978) study of the development of
capitalism in the five Central American nations of Costa Rica, it
Selvedav Houduras, Guatemala amilZicaragua is empirically among the
richest in the studies on Latin America. trinson presents data to
indicate the very wide variety of formsof exploitation that coexist in
each historical setting. Moreover, he argues that given the "availa-
bility of inexpensive exploitable labour power, large landowners have
not found it in their interests to undertake the modernisation of the
productive Process,•or at least not until more recent times" (p.39), 16
The much more difficult Tention, of course, is the political one of consciousness. As Banaji outs it, 'Commodity-relations of eroduction are never directly reflected in consciousness - their forms of appearance
contd...
![Page 33: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
,e0
It is perhaps this wide-ranging evidence from all over Latin
America that prompted Teresa Heade (1973) in her own study of Br:zit
to posit a third path of capitalist development as distinct from
Mares two ways. Meade argues that while she finds a number of
similarities in the Brazilian path with '.T ay No.2 of Marx, she feels
that its distinctiVe character ddrives from the impact of imperialism
on Brazilian society and the export-producing role imposed on it by
foreign capital. In fact, in termsof our own argument the Brazilian
case which has parallels in Latin America could also be incorporated
into Jay No.2.
Coming next to Africa, we may mention first work Cewenis
(1976a,b) on Yenya. which we shall return to later. Cowen shots how
capitalist enterprises use pre-capitalist forms such as share-cropping
to dominate the labour--process. Philip Raikes (1978). in a study of
rural Ufferentiation in Tanzania aclmowledges that 'dhe "processes by
which African commodity production has been increasingly subordinated
to the requirements of international capital" ehld which the :peasantry
as a whole is increasingly separated from control over the means of
production and labour process, thus. becoming proletarianised even
while they continue to own the land on which they cultivate". are "highly
significant and substantially different from the 'classic' case", the
latter being Marx's ''ay No.1 (p.286) Lionel Cliffe (1977), in a study of
empirical richness comparable to ':Tinson's, emphasises the protracted
character of the transition to'a r>p,eciticailyce:_eitalist mode of .oroduction.
Using P.P.Rey's broad theoretical framework (see conclusion for ela-
boration) , Cliffe examines the very gide variety of forms in ,:hich
capital -i enetrates agriculture in three countries - Kenya, Uganda
conbi.of footnote 16 • mediate their reception into consciousnezis" (Banaji 1977b 2.1390).
Parc' Donnolt-Thomsen are all acutely aware of this as also are2J1ILLn, Bernstein and Raikes whom we mention later.
•
a
![Page 34: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
33
and Tanzania. Samir Amin (1977) 171,ile discussing the evolution of
capitalist agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa, shows how tae immediate
producer is not an independent petty-commodity producer, despite appearance:
In fact
"the administration and capital intervene in the :productive
process and actually control it. There is a host of
administrative measures employed to force the Peasant to
produce What is wtnted and in the manner desired" (p.69).
"Thus dominated the Iproaucteur de traite' is stri-ned
of the real control of his means of production .... nor
can he decide what to produce on the basis of competitive prices. Ho is therefoie not really a commodity producer.
His remuneration does not include either compensation for his ownership of the i.e. ground rent or a return on
his capital; he is reduced, owing to the domination of capi-
tal, to the value of his labour-power or frequently to even less. .... A peasant reduced tothis status is a semi-prole-tarian: a proletarian, -Jecause he is subjected to ca)ital
exploitation which extracts surplue-value from him; a semi-
proletarian, because he retains the appearance of a free
commodity producer.' (7).70).
Finally, we may note that in a recent important article,
Henry Berbstein (1979) has proposed a theoretical frameJor:: within
which to study African peasantries. In the article, Demustein expli-
citly recognises the importance of the phase of the farmal subordination
of labour to capital. (v0.456-7). He argues that "?easant Producers
are Twege-labour equivalents, that is, producers of surplus-value,
but in less determinate conditions than the proletariat- (p.436)
because they are not yet really subordinated to capital.
![Page 35: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
34
7rom all over Latin .Ams:ica and Africa, therefore, we get
evidence of various aspects of the phenomon we earlier spoke of
theoretically. It is undoubedly true that the way in which it is
concoptualised varies greatly among scholars but one thiag is clear-
all scholars show an acute awareness of the need- to study the concrete
processes involved in the transition to caPitalism-something which is
most often missing in Indian studies on the question. Among the
useful Indian studies we may mention Banaji (1977b), Bundle (1979)
and Isaac (1980). A significant recent work in the context of Isaac's
study (and which tallies with his general aDproach)is that of Alice
Littlefield for artisan industries in the Yacatan provinc'e of S.E.Hexico.
She concludes that
'although the overall tendency is clearly for mechanised
industrial production by large-scale capitalist enter-
,T)rie..; to tZ:e oyez. -1-Le provision of the internal mass
market, other historically more ancient, technically
sim)102 and lees fall:- capitalist forms of production
survive -uhd arc reproduced and
created anew by the special condition3of the Hexican
economy" (p.485 emphasis ours).
But she adds,
"in terms of the explanatory framework adopted here,
craft activity in Mesoamerica is seen not as a aa_Tvival
of non-capltaliC.It economic forms but as an activity
whose persistence, growth and d.:velopment in contemporary
times are to be explained in terms of the Reneral processes
of class differcntiation and division of labour undar capitalist
development, and the subsumption of non-capitalist modes
of -Production by capitalist ones. Although retnirILDE
certain tpre-ca-litalisti features relation3of -production
i. rural artisanry are f.ncreagLaElydeteinined by the
lar-er capitclist clualay." (p.486, emphasis ours)
![Page 36: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
35
6. aGATIVE IBPERENCE: ODE
Ue are 1101/ in a position to drau the first of the two major
negative analytical inferences of this paper. The phenomenon we
have been concerned with clearly has a fairly high degree of empiri-
cal significance. Thu3, in any analysis of the transition to the
specifically capitalist mode of production, it becomes crucially
important to recognise that the developing capitalist node of produ-
ction may utilise a variety of forms of exploitation in order to
subordinate the labour process to its control and that the process
of the merely formal subordination of labour to capital may occur over
17/ a very long period of time.-- Thus, the various forms of exploita-
tion that exist in this phase may embody essentially capitalist rela-
tions of production. Vary oftm their existence can be merely a reflectio
of the varying strategies that capital em?loys to subsume the labour-
process.
The firot major ner;ative nhalytical inference that ire may,
then, draw is that modes of production can:aot be identified by merely
observing the prevailing forms of exploitation uitaout attempting to of these forms
understand the_ precise functionalityl(especially given the wide
range these forms may assume particularly in a period prior to the
advent of the specifically capitalist mode of production). This is,
in fact, a conclusion that necessarily follows from a wide variety
of propositions- presented in this paper - Chaynnov'S vertical concen-
tration, Lenin and Kauts:w!s argument about the possible comlomentarity
of small production and capitalism, iiarx's argument about wage ir:oour 1
In fact, as Dobb argud: "ti.:: subordination of pro,kuction to capital, and the appence Of this cl,,so rolz.tionshiL) be'reon -Lnd tP.. proalcer is, therefor3, to b- the. crucial .TL_t.rshod betwon the old riode "of production t'Ae n)w, .,iren if the technical changes ;re associate with the industrial revolution were needed both to complete the tr:_nsition and to afford scope for the full maturing of the cajitalist mode of production and of the great incrc:.so in thc: - i-uctive power of hur.i.lia labour associated uith it." (Dobb 1945, P.143).
![Page 37: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
36
in pre-ca.-dtalism and finally the ride ranginc evidence from Lin
America and Africa which nay be regarded kstually as a confirriation
18/ of the mechanisms Lenin, ICLI..tsky and Chayan&vspoo of In fact,
a number of scholars from all ovu2 tho world,despito their man-.
differences, agree on this one issue /L'ee Corti;::nt.al (1978).
26nneu et. al (1977), Bernstein (1977), Cowen (1976 a,b), Martinez-Alder
(1971, 1977), Banaji (1977 a c .nd b), Foster-Carter (1970), Djurfeldt
and Lindbort (1975), Littlefield (1979) Fernando hello ot s( .19/ --
However, in the context of the debate, on the mode of production
in Indian agriculture, this error is persistently made by those who
argue that forms of exoloitntion such as e.hare-cropping and Usury
necessarily indicate tho presence of semi-feudalism. In fact, such
forms could be perfectly compatible with capitalist agriculture, and
their specific raison-d' etre only bo understood by placing them in
the context of the entorprio and tho mode of production within which
Zee also discussion of the development of modem industry where he mentions the significance of domestic units of production that continue to exist. Ho writes "This modern 'domestic industry' has not ling except the ncUO in common with old-fashioned domestic industry, the existence Of which -)resupposes independol:t urban handicrafts, independent peasant farming, and above all, a dwelling-house for the Worker and his family. That kind of industry has now been conver-bd into an external deoartment of the factory, the manufacturin_; workshop or the warehouse. Besides the factor.- worker, the uorl.:ers enga3ed in manufacture, and the h r- whom it concentrates in large zlasses at ono spot, and directly commands, capital also sets another army into motion, by mealls of invisible threads :tho o.utworkers in the domestic industries, who live in tho large t..Agns as well as bein scattered over the countryside.' (Marx 1976 -op.59-1, emphasis ours),'
How, in fact, modes of production are to be identified and, therefore, what is the way to determine the precise sigAficance of the forms that exist within it, are questions 7re shall attempt to answer only in the concludinr:; section of this pa:)er.
![Page 38: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
37
they occur.--
::Tith reference to sliare-crop•eing, ue may mention thy; studies
of Couen (1976) and Martinez-AlieT.(,1977) hartinez-Alier argues that •
"share-cropping, and also cash-tenacy are forms of use of labour
zimilar to carefully negotiated -oiece-work rates, not customary but
variable. Those ::re rationalisee. ways of using labour sncl they might
be substituted for other forms-including wage payment as agriculture
becomes more commercialised, provided that the share of. labour in total
costs is still high.' (p.36). In fact, ho she:S.111th examples from
uthern Spain and pre-revilutionary Cuba that 'landowners themselves
decide between different forms of use of the labour available partly
in terms of profits.: (or rents) they will get under one syztem or the
other. Thus they compare profits from using wage-labour with rents from
using share-cropping (or cash-tunancy) and may decide accordingly'
(3.35). Such choice decieions Haong different labour-contract arr.:mgc-
=its clearly do not represent differences in modes of production - they
are simply a reflection of the profit calculus of a c:..oitlist enter-orisc.
In fact, Nichol Cozen in a study ofKonyan agriculturo shows
hoar capitalit enterprises may be sot up through a re;;ulation of 1-21„; cron-
choices of share-croopers -.lid by maing them produce a certain outout-
who e quantity and quality i specified-without neces:;arily expro-oriatini:
20 The ir.lportance of placinL; forms of exploitation in the context so,7'Le ent,r,)riza employing then can be illustrated b.y referrin:: to In cited in Djurfeldt and Lindberg. (1975,630-1). They show how mall
.lore: for -ach other as Icoeliesi, A -ror:in..for D on, day, .nt2. B wor!:ing for L _'.troth .:r day. 2:.ymentz are made in mJ1_ ey-7.3 is a relatively .canvenient?receduro. But labour clu,:rly not capital-positing, cardtal-creating labour'. _L I; the s -17.e tine, in concrete situation they are analysing, Djurfeldt and. Lindberg ooint to the existence of ra,g;e-labour in this strict sense 'IDO, exoressin the relationship between rich farmers on the one 1Lan!:'., TLall farme...-s and laneless labour,::!s, on the other. Thus Athin 'the sz%me mode of production, the same fhrm may acquire a different sii;nific:Inco, depending on the enterprise eimloying it.
![Page 39: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
38
them directly. Moreover, in an area of production dominated by
great uncertainty, share-croppin could be regarded as a risk-sharing
technique.
• And, finally, one can hardly forgot the repeated reminders
of Lenin and Kautsky that the ::merging cnoitalist class' would find
it profitable to make allotments to labourers which ensure a more
regular supply of labour. -Jou Utsa Patnaik (1979) very rightly
recognises that 'bola the phenomena discussed by 1:^_utzy - the small-
scale tillers and semi-nroletarians cultivating at - below-wages return
in the absence of any preferred alternative and tie-in land allotments
to farm labourers - are encountered Oil an oven more (Intensive scale
in India today' (P.410). In fact, she provides imnortant data which
are evidence that this is happening. She shves hou poor tenants are
"typically obliged to underfeed their bullecks and underfeed themselves
in order to obtain the very condition for production, land on lease"
(D.400). :h;: ITS3 dat on paid-out costs of production of major
crops which vary between 40-45;; of gross output value. dasumin3 an
average 'rent' of 501-; (which seems usual) this leaves 0-5. for the
producer - could easily re-oresent the semi-proletarian we
spoke of earlier. But for Patnaik this d,:ta shows high levols of pre-
canitalist n:round rent! - tr licll loads her to the conclusion: ''This
is the fundamental reason for the fact that, in history, capitalist
Dr)duction h s been necessarily associated with a more productive
level of technique. This is.not merely an empirical fact: but also
a lolcrl necessity" (p.401). And this, as our entire ?A:ceding
discussion 3110WS, is a total mist^ko.
![Page 40: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
39
The usefulness of her analysis as also of Bhadurifs(1973)
lies in fact, in indicating some of the factors that influence the
transition to a 2.7pecificcalv capitalist mode of production based on
a higher level of technique. For it is clear th-lt in a situation where
a high rate of interest can be obtained by londinc money arld/or a high
rate of absolute surplus-value can be extracted on the b-Isis of existing
technique, there Llay be little incentive for the cal)italist to revolu-
tierisa the production-process.
Before leaving share-cropping we would like to make one final
clarification. Our argument is not that share-cropping; always represents
a concealed wage rel-.tionship. The point, however, is that it very
well could and the answer to -whether or not it does, hr.s to be deter-
mined by investigation, and not asserted by definition, as the SODi-
foudalii3ts do.
Oinilarly about usury - it is clear that the capitalist in his
attempt to establish his supremacy over the labour-process would use
a number of instruments, of ,,Thich usury is Dile. -s rote
while commenting on the conditions of peasants in j?rance in the mid-
19th century,: "It can be seen that their exploitation differs onlyL
in form from the exploitation of the industrial proletariat. The
exploiter is the same: capital. Thu individual capitalists exploit
the individual peasants through mortaqes and 1111112" (11,x:: 1050, p.111).
In fact, we suggest that the phenomenon of tho so-called
interlocking of the land, labour, credit and product markets observed
in India by many, is, perhaps, best viewed as the attemlA caAtal
to extort cheap labour from the large mass of proletarian and semi-
proletarians. For 'a very useful nttempt at concretely understanding
![Page 41: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
•
40
the :cehomics of bond..-.T;:) in ithe Indian context, see Hundlc (1979).
It is ,.1so true, Mr0OV...tr, that just like the tho
worker :nay -.1so, .at times, conbinc a varioty of econonic roloL3. This
uould conclusively bring to nought any attempt to identify modes of
1-, roduction by ncrcly the prevailing form:3 of exloitation.
ma2.7.es this point convincingly in his effective critique
of 'on-f.rn JeterminismF. No cites the example of
'a single corker who is simultanoously (i) ownor of
his o-.In land and house, (ii) shcrocro.oper on another'
(iii) tenant on thirds land, (iv) wae
worker during h!lrvest times ea onu of those lands,
(v) independent trftdeZ of his own hone produced
(Frank, 1969, 73p.271-2).
7. THE '131=D27..XY TTIEOrd.
Thu way out of tip, hou -Jver, is not the one :'rank
2dr in': -.1i. :11. the recognition th.at a mode
of production cT',-_not bo dofind in t.ars of the fortis of
oxjloit -Aion, load , _. to th- diametric:A..1y op-losite error - they argue
that with the advent of a upiad oconony in the 16th century,
relations of production throughout the world had to bu redefined in
turas of the governing princioles ',of the int.rnational divi:lion of
labour diottod by the world ca?)it.alist economy. Before .TfoLig an
to elaborate our own view zgarai17g ;thcro the defining role should
21/ lie, we briefly criticise this arrmnont.-- This iE;
i:aoortant for us becL6e the funda:lent.11 urror undo:dying this
tieo us with the third majer error no em7hasisud at t:h.. start, vis. the
t.c.iporta:nco of tie :dstorical startini point. •
21/. detailed criticise of view would be beyon.l. t"Le co :)e of this . )a)or, A u_oful VAA of Bronner (1977).
![Page 42: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
41
Thci focus of the Idoiendency theorists' is on th, tinter-
n,:tional division of labour' th.at enorges uith the conin:; of.thu
uorld systout, in tie 16th century. This innliLo
hior:_rchy of productive t'as'.!-:i gots defined to which corrys:,onds
hierarchy of 'forms of labour control."Crudely, those who brocCI
uanpowor sustain those rho grow food 'rho sustain those who grow
other rnw natorials who sustain those involved in industrial production'
("J llorstein, 1976, p.65). And correspondingly, there are different
nodes of organioing labour at the anne point of tine in different parts
of the 1 modurn world systonl, -very and 'coerced c.sh-crop labour'
ealistod in the. 'periphryr, haro-uronpors in the tsemi-DoriYthery'
;and waco-labourors and "off-cultivators in the 'coro'. Noreover,
"oach nolo of labour control is boot suit d. for particul.:.r types
oaf production' (ibis. ,x.65) that It carrius out. And it is this
hierarchy that assured the flow of surplus u-ich •;:nabl d the capitalist
world economy to 22/ cone into 0::istunco.2-- And once it was established
"other 'modes of prOLuction' survived in function of how- they filled
into a politico-social framework deriving from c:voitalisr," (ibid,p.58).
Thu view is, to sc.y the luce quite surpriisir. a
it is&no-sidedneas which involves assuming that the de:1 ,nds of: capitr_i-
reproduction ;arc; the only elenont of ::planation in understLndin-•; tLe
iupetus for _change in different '7a its of the world uver oince th
1 6th century. This coupletely iznor,..s the inner dya2lic of the no,le
of prodaction uith which the expandinc 0::..Ditalist node of - 7.-Jdur;tion
hs )1=ji puts it, Ithose nodes of production ar.;
2/ -- In this concuptualisation the isocond scm-fdon' "1.]ur).?u
i3 es'sentially capitaliat in charactur.
4
•
![Page 43: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
I
4
42
to be noroly "vegetating on thL periphery of an industrialising Europe
like a vast resorve of labour-power periodically called into action
by tho spasmodic expansions of metropolitan capital" (Banaji, 1977a, p.14).
Further, Brenner (1977) provides important empirical refutations
of 7ralterstein's arguments. And 3,..aaji argues, citing the -works of
Vilar. .7.nd 11%3:Lan Malowist, that "tho initial' impulse which sustained
the vast network of world commodity exchanges before; the eighteenth
century derived from the expanding consumption requirements of the
lords. Moreover, at its incention the colonis..tion of Latin Amorist'.
was a feudal colonisation" (ibid. p.31) attotpted by thu crisis-ridden
landowning classes.of Europe. In fact, Vila (1971) describes Spanish
'imperialism', of this period as the Highest stage of feudalism.
8. ITEGATIVE IKVERE:CE: T70
In emphasising the import:rnce of the historical starting point of
4 in any Jtudy :)f develonr?c:ntL our main -.1.;u:aunt is directed
agaim,t a certain vulgaris4tipn of the Marxist concuntion of history
which reduces it to a universally applicable unilinuar model of
evolution, in which every hur.lan society passes through the s=0 sequence
of stages. To would like to quote Harz in t1us context to Liow that
ouch a view is completely alien to his work and ne thod. In a repudiation
of Mikhailorslzy's attempt "at trnnRforning my historical sketch of the
genesis of capitalism in 'estern Europe (in Capital I, Part a) into an
historico-philosophic; l theory of the gener!;.1 path of.devel.pment
prescribed by fate to all. nations", he writes:
•
![Page 44: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
43
"events strikingly anal:igous but taking olace
in different historical surroundings led to totally
different results. By studying each oft ::se forms
of evolution separately and then comparing them one
can easily find the clue to this )henemonon, but one
will never arrive there by using as one's master hey
a general historico-philosophical theory, the supreme
virtue of which consists in being supra-historical"
Rarx, letter to the editors of Otechostvenniye Zapiski
in November 1877 quoted in Corrigan ot.al (1978)7
The extraordinary fact is that the dependency theoreists
who took precisely such an attitude as their point of departure,
ended up by =king a very similar error, viz. that of ignoring
the specificity of the historical setting in which capitalism develops.
Mao Tse `sung suns up the matter
"Does materiali:It dialectics exclude external causes?
Not at all. It holds that external causes aro the
cone.ition pf change and internal causes the basis of
change, and that external causes become operative thrDugh
internal causes. In a suitable temperature n eg-; sh-ere;es
into a chiclren, but no tenperature can chance a ston.; into
a chicken, because each has a different basis." (3.1ao Tse Tung,
1971, p.89).
The need to avoid the error th.t the dependency theorists
make is, therefore, the second major negative cnalytical
of this paper. It is evident that the subordination of the-labolir .
process to capital does not proceed irrespective of the nature of
the anterior mode of production but is, in fact, deeply conationed
by it, and varies greatly :rith variations in the latter..
•
![Page 45: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
44
9. COliCLUSION
The central analytical problem motivating this paper may now
be posed. In doing so vie bring together all the major methodolo4cal
points made throughout the paper.
The problem as ue have presented it appears to be one of
deciding the level of abstraction at which our analysis must be pitched
once it is clear that both the crude empiricism involved in ton-farm
d , terminismt, and the 'abstract determin^tiont (Harz, Grundrisse p.101)
,of the dependency theorists must be rejected. The flaw in both these
approaches is their one-sidedness which is refl(eted in th•ir viewing
phenomena "seDarately from each other" and not "in their inner connection
as an integrated totality" (Mandel, introduction to Harx, Volume I of
Capital 1976, p.18). And in Marx's scheme, this totality is provided
by the pr,dominant mode of production existing in the specific spatio-
temporal conjuncture und.Jr coar;idorcItion, predomthance being dofinecl
in terms of the predominance of its laws of motion.
The centr -:1 foun:'1:tion of Harx's metho'd is the princiPle that
very historical p,riod possesses its Dun laus" (ilarx quetin7KAUfman.
on his own method, post-face to jecond Edn. of Vol.I of Ca,,dtal, Harx
1976, p.101). L.n0 what en::bles on„ to demarcate thus, hiLtorical
period3,7hat H.rx called mo,,lec of production, are thus, 1-,ws themselves.
As Engels wrote to Harx in 1873, "to Identify the different hinds nf
motion is t -) identify the bodies themselves.' The neatest stat_ment,
however, is that of 7itold Kul:, whose work on the foudal node of
production is an eutstan. ing examplC of the apAicati,n Earx's
method. Kula writes:
![Page 46: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
45
"An economic system is a set of dependent, interconnected
economic relationships which, precisely because they are
interconnected, arise more or loss contomnorancously and
disappear more or less contemporaneously, giving way to
other relationships. The 1-„tin-onniricrad.r21. th; it onorgenco lad dissolution anables us to fix the limits
of a specific economic system in time (Kula, 1975, p.175,
emphasis ours).
Thus, our analysis must be pitched at a level (o patio-temporal)
where we can identify these relationships or laws. This would bo the
totality in whose domain we exanine the forms of oxIDloitation that
coexist within it. Only within such a totality can we understand
the precise significance of these forms. Tho fact is that the same
form can exist in different historical contexts and acquire an entirely
different significance in each of then i.e. embody quite different
production relations in each case. This depends on the specific
function it performs in each situation. That this is a central tenet
of iiarmt s method becomes imileaately clear if we rocogniee that
Marx emphasised the distinction between form and essence not merely
to stress the need to unravel the essence underlying the form but also
to explain how :and why a particul-r essence rikos its appearance in th
Liven concrete farm.
4Political oconomy.has indeed analysed value and its
magnitude, however incompletely, and has uncovered tho
content concealed within these forms. But it has never
asked the question why this content has assumed that
particuLx (Marx 1976, p2.173-4).
As :dubin (1972) puts it, Marx's genetic or dial ctical method
consists of both analysis and synthesis in contrast to the -me-sided
analytical method of the Classical _Ccmonists. 1.n riother. context -
![Page 47: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
46
Rubin says
"on the question of the relation between content and
form, Marx took the standpoint of Hegel, and not of Kant. Kant treated form as soncting external in rola-
tion to th- content, and as something which adheres to
the content from the outside. From the standpoint of
He gel' philosophy, th, content is not in itself something
to which form adheres from the outside. Rather, through
its develipment, the content itself gives bitth to- the
form which was already latent in the content. Form
Moreover, this argument is closely related to the logical
ri.d historical character of Marx's method and his distinction between
simple md concrete categories in th, Grundrisso. As Marx says in
the Grundrisso
"even the moot abstract cat,gories, despite their vali-
dity-precisely because of their abstractn.ass.- f'or .111 epochs,
are n vortheleos,, in th, specific character of this
abstraction, themselves likewise a Product of historic
relations, and possess their full validity only for and
within these relations." (Marx 1973, D.105).
In the concrete historical situations we are moot interested
in, viz. the ex-col:nial nation:, of the world tod:T, the T::ajor problem
is thf:t of analysin.: the interaction between the expandin inter-
national 'talist uodJ of prodUction and the modes of production
existing in these nations. One has to try to capture the .7;r -:dual
rooess through ,Thich these anterior mo:',cs of production are deprived
of their own laws of motion and subjected to those of the expanding
The same point ie onph=ised by iThndel (introduction to Marx. 1976), Ilosdolsky (1977), 6'ohn-Rethel (1978), Linder (1975) and Banji (1977a).
23/ necessarily grows out of the content itself" (ibid.p.117)--
23
I
0
![Page 48: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Pp
47
24/ capitalist one.- This is crucial in order not to fall irito the
error of the dependency theorists who while avoiding the crude
empiricist mistake of identifyin,- ampearance with essence, totally
fail to provide the mediating links .necessary to explain why the
sane essence ap,.pears in riven concrete forms in a certain astorical
setting and not in others. In fact the form that ca,it:Ilist penetra- 0̀
Lion takes would crucially depend on all factors of the )articular
historical setting which influence the balance of forces in the
capital-labour relation (enumerated earlier in brief).
Very general formulationsof this so-called larticulatiop'
have been attempted by P.P.itey 9:-
5'/
and Charles Bettlehein (1S772).
Rey speaks of three- ,)hasee in the. transition to capitalism.
The first in which the capittlist node of production is not yet
doninant. Gaoitalian je dependent on other modes for ra materials etc.
and hence reinforces their rel;Itions of production. In the second phase,
the tronkition to which necessarily entails a .,:;reat do:J of violence,
the capitalist mode takes root aldd becomes the dor.:Linant .ziode. However,
it still needs pre-capitalist nodes to proviC.Lo 1J; a r,:-;ular supply
of labour. Those nodes now- enit 'on the basis' of ccitalisn md are
modified accordingly. The third phase is that of the 's)ecifioally
capitalist modc -3roductiont which is yet to rail;:us its Fa.petlrance in
the Third -Jorld.
24 This is a )rocess which can be said to bord-1 to occur from the 15th century onwards on world-wid scale. Tho uictah of the de-Jendoncy theorists is to assume it to be over by then!
25/ The major writings of :le:- aro still not available in J2inzlish. See Bradby (19V) and Ii.loter-Carter (1973) for summaries.
![Page 49: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
48
According to Bettleheim, the development of capitalism
proceeds differently in social formations in which the cc:At -list
node of production is predominant and those in which it is not.
In both there exist. tendencies towards what he calls "dissolution"
and "conservation—dissolution' of )/..ecanitalist modes of production.
(CA:msamvaiial-dissolution means 'restructuring' or partial dissolution.
The difference lies in the fact that in social formations where
capitalism predominates, the first tendency is the primary one and
the second one, secondary while the opposite holds in the pericheral
formations.
These are interesting formulations and have the merit of at least
recognising the protracted character of the transition to the s-lecifically
capitalist node Df production and -that various forms May coexist within 10
it. But th,Ar, generality is seductive and must not be talon as a
substitute for concrete empirical enalysis. This still re:Aains an
area which needs for greater euldrical substantiation before any
grand theorisation can be considered Credible. lircover, ;:hey must
not lead to the tendency, which in widespread, of necesary speaking
terms of coexistence of mode's of production even whore a dominant
mode articulatin various forma and assigning; them their significlnce,
can be identified. This would otherwise merely resurrect the
dualism which it was the primary aim of these thcorint:3 to contest. F.
An ,ttom-)t must, therefore, be made to identify the dominant
26 tendencies which define the mo...e ef production=— .
267 very imortant task is that of formulatim the diffTerences in the laws ch-,.racterisin:; the p_riods of formal :'r'id Jubsumption. See Ben Pinu (1970) for be,:finning in this direction.
![Page 50: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
49
In this context, to muuld like to put forward four pr000sitions
each of which contains suggestions for further work:
(1) These tendencies or laws can be (liscJrned, at one level, by
examining the 'economic calculus' and activity of the 'enterprises'
existinz within the node of production.
(2) To comprehend the precise significance of this calculus and
activity however, it is necessary to first locate the exact place
the enterprise occupies in the mode of produc tion. The latter is
what Marx (1976, see footnote 13 above) and Lenin do (see Volume I
and Volume III of his Collected 7orks), while analysing 'dornstic
industry' under capitalisn. See also Banaji (1977a), Isaac (1930)
and Littlefield (1979), for a similar analysis of 'peasant', 'domestic'
and 'artisan' production respectively, under capitalizm. For feudalism
see Kula (1976).
(3) This economic calculus and activity are moreover, influenced
dee-oly by the material conditions (!institutional' and technolo(ical)
characterising the mode of production.Kula (1976, Ch.3) is a brilliant
substantiation of this point, with reference to the feudal mode of
oroduction. Bettelheim (1976) examines similar is.:ues in the context
of the transition to socialism.
(
The dynamic of the mode of production is, finally, a :.roduct of
the operation and interaction of the totality of the enterprises
existing within it. Kula (1976, ch.4) for example, vividl describes
how the demesne —peasant plot articulation determines the
term dynamic' of the.Ceudal node of production.
![Page 51: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
50
Propositions 3 and 4 amount really to auggostin:.; the
need to study the dialectic between the lairs of motion of a mode
of production and the relations and forces of production characterising
it. Inciive analyses of this type arc to be found, for examplo,
27/ in Bremer (1975 and 1977).:—
Thu aim of any study attempting to analyse the development
of capitalism in agriculture, then must bo to place the existing
forms of exploitation in the context of the ontorpriso and the mode
of production within which thoy occur. Only then can one an
insight into both the essential function that these forms embody and
th r D113 VTIly theY aper..r as such. such a methodolojIc al anpro ach
iS k_f oven greater significance for agriculcure because, no we havo
already noted, the transition to the specically capitalist mode of
production in agriculture can be -)articularly protracted and can
vxiat,noo of a v,riety of forms of exploitation.
27/ -- Here, we nay also mention T.Nauro, a French historian, uhose uork seems methodologically quite attractive. Thnugh still unavLiiable in '&1glish, it is montioned.in Kula (1976, T.p.24-5). Mauro examines, what he a:111.3, the era of ',merchant ca7italism' i.e. the period from the 16th to the 18th century in -'astern Europe.
![Page 52: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
References
411171- h (1975): ILklia and the colonial Mode of Production, Economic and Political F2,222122naaks11.12 _21salat1912
Amin, S. (1977): ILTDorialism and Urequal Development.
Banaji, J. (1976): Chayanov, rauta:zy, Lenin: Considerations Totrards -A Synthesis, Economic and P Utica]. Ueekl‘ October 2 1976.
Banaji J. (1977a): Modes of ProduCtion in A Materialist Conception of History, Caoital and Class
Banaji, J. (1977b): Ca-Atraist Domination and the Small Peasantry Deccan. Districts in tho Late Nineteenth Century, Economic and
Bernstein, H. (1979): African PoasAmtkies: A Theoretical Framouork, Journal of Peasant Studies, Vol.6, N. o.4.
Bottalheim, C. (1972): Thoretical Comments, A,.)pendix 1 in-Emmanuel (1972)
Bettelheim, C. (1976): Economic Calculation and Forms of Property.
Bhaduri, A. (1973):. A, Study in A„;:ricultaral Bnclrdnoss Under Semi-Feudalism, The Economic Journal March: 1973. •
Dradby, B. (1975): The Destruction of Natural Economy, 2c3nony aid
Brenner, (1976): Ar:rarian Cla3s Structure and Iconomic Development ti
in ?tee-industrial Suro.de. =past arc. Prosent, 70.
Brenner, R (1977): TA;: oriL;insof Capitalist D-voloDment: A critic uo of Neo-SmiClian Marxism. Neu Left Reviev,104.
C-mbridge.Journal of Econo:lics (1979) Vol.5, ;",00tumber 1979.
Chnndra,17.1C (1974): Farm 2fficiuncy under Somi-Feualism: Critique of Marginalist Thoorics and some Marxist foTudl:.tions, Economic and PJlitical `eekly, Siocial Number' Aur;ust 197.1.
Chayanov, A.V. (1925): Punzont Farm Ordnisation, in Thorner ot.al ( 1966) .
Cliffe, L. (1977): Rural Clr',ss Formation in East Africa, Journal of Peasant Studies Vol.," No.2.
Corrigan, P., Ramsay, H. and Sayer, D. (1978): Socialist ConstructiJn and Marxist Theory, Eolshovism and Its Critique.
Cowen, M.P. (1976a): 13apital and Peasant Households (mimeo).
Cowen, M.P. (1976b): 'Tattle Production in tho Central Provinces and Household commodity Production (in Kenya 1903-64) (nimoo).
![Page 53: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Djurfeldt, G. and Lindberg, S. (1975): Behind Poverty, The Social Formation in a Tanil Village.
Dobb, N. (1945); Studies in the ll,:velopuent of Capit,-...11:rm.
Emmanuel, A (1972) : Unequal Exchange, A Study in the Imperialism cf Trade.
Ennew, J, Hirst, P. and Tribe, K. (1977): 'Peasantry' As An licononic Category, Journal - of Peasant Studies Vo .z No., .
Fine, B. (1970 ) On the Origins of Capitalist Developraent, Now Left Review, 109.
F ost er-Carter, A. (1973): The of Production ControverFly, New 1L.ttRovigaz_191
Frank, A.G. (1969): Capitalism and,. Underd:evelopMent in L atin
Friedman, J. ( 1974) : Structuralism and Vulgar lizlizialisra.
Harris , R.L. (1978): Marxism an(.1.. Agrarian Question in Latin America, Latin American P,rs-sec-',;ivos Vol. No.-4 .
Harriss, J. (1979): The liode ,-)f Production Controversy. Th.cr..e.s and Problems of the Debate, MIDI Uor17Ing Paper 110 .6.
Hindess, B. and Hirst, P . 1975) 15re-c api talist Modesof Production.
Isaac, T.11. (1900): Class Strugglo and the Formo.1 Suhsumr:,tion of Labour Under. Ca,;:ital A Case Study of the Coir Industry in Kerala.
Lautsky, K. (1899): The Agrz.,..rian question - (translated into English by Danaji, J. f or Economy rnd Vol.5, No.1, 197',3).
Hula., (1976): An Economic The 017 of the Feudal System.
Lenin, V.I. (1895): The Economic Content of Narodian and the Criticism of It in rir.Struvar s Book (in Vol.I of Collected I.Torks).
, The Lenin, V.I. (189S;a):ZDevolopment of Capitalism in Russia.
Lenin, V.I. (1C99b) : Review of Karl Kautskyl s The Agrarian Quoation (in Vol.4 of Collected 7:forks).
Lenin, V.I. (1915): Neu Data on the Laws Governinri. the Dc.,veloamop.t if bj Capitalism in AGriculture (in Vol.22 Collected
Linder, Ii. (1975): Reification n.d the Consciousness of the critics of Political Economy. itu.dies in the Development of Tir,rx s The ory of Vr.lue
L i tt le f lc ld, A. ( 1979) ; The Expansion of C of Pfoduction in Itexionn. Crafts, Journal of P.-;1-.:.3aut V01,6,
![Page 54: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
Mr....ndel, B. (1.976a)• : Introduction t Marx ( 1976) .
Mandel, E. (1976b): Introduction to A-ppendiz to Marx (1976).
Mao Tse Tung ( 19 71 ) Selected Readings from the 'Tor:;:s ..)f Mao `:.'se Tung.
HartzLnez-Alier, J. (1977): Haciendas, Plantations and Golic.:ctive Farms.
liartienz-Alier, J. (1971 ).: Lr.tbouters and Landowners in Southern
Nar,Z, K. (1850): The Class Struggles in France 18,',8-1850.
Marx, IC. (1877): Letter to the editors of Otecherrtxrenniyo ZaDiski, reprinted in part in Corrigan et.al (1978).
Harz, K. (1894): Capital Ve1.5.
Marx, K. ( 19 7 3) : Grundrisse.
Marx, K. (1976): Capital Vol.l.
Heade, T. ( 19 73 ) : The Transition to Capitallem in Brazil. Notes on a 'bird Road - in Latin Anerican Pors- )ectives Vol.5 1To.
Bundle, S. ( 19 79 ) : Backwardness and Bond.as.e.
Patnaik, U. (1979): Neo-l'o-Dulisu and Marxism: The Chayanovian Viou of the Agrarian Question And Its fundamental Journal of Peasant Stuflic.,..o Vo1.6,
Raikes, P. (1978): Rural Differentiation Class formation its. Tanzania, Journal of Po sant studies, Vo1.5,
Rosdolsky, R. (1977): The Wai:ing of Marx' s Ca2ital.
Roseberry, 1.r. (1978): Pc.)as.7.tntf:: and Proletarians, • Crjti•-i e of Anthr000lo , .11 .
Rubin, I.I . (1972) : fissays On Marx.' s Theory of Value.
Rudra, A. (1973) : ClaSs- Relations in In al an Agriculturo, c Jlloaie k! 7'reekly, June .3 17, 1973.
S au, It. (1976): Can Capitalism Develop in L.criculire? Economic :210. Political December 1976.
S ohn-lie the 1, A. ( 1978) : Intellectual and Manual Labour: Critique of Epistemolov.
tavenhaisen, It. (1378): Capitalism and the Peaunntry In Mexico, Latin Auoricen P,rs-Dectives
![Page 55: CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Working Paper 107 ON …cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wp107.pdf · 2020-01-14 · issue has tended to !.s:J.To away from this question. On the](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042117/5e9518dc6a8d7b430a57a2c9/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
teinsaard, N. (1973): Carrac!zr, CaravanS mid Companies: The Structural crisis in the Euro—Asian Trade in the 17th Century.
'jvreezy, Dobb et.al (1976): The Transition from Fouclalism to
Tatissig, Ti. (1978): Pe..7,sant Ec.ononies and theDevelopnent • Ca.A.talist A3-riculture in. the Cadua Valley, Colombia,
Latin American P,rs-)ertive Ve1.5, No.3.
Thornor, D., Kerblay, B. and Smith, R.E.P. (ads) (1966): A.Y.Clayanov's The Theory of the Peasant Economy.
Vilar, P. (1971): The Age Jf Don Quiznte, NcrLoft•RaAaIrJust, 1971.
Uallersteim, I. (1976): Tuii,...7ioti•Irn T.rnrld System.
A. (1978): Class Struc tare And Agrarian Transition in Central America, • .
• • - • Tp2:10,...„.,,,,,E,LeA„:- . • •