PRIMITIVE ACCUMULATION AND IMPERIALISM IN RELATION TO THE REPRODUCTION OF THIRD WORLD PEASANTRIES DEBORAH FAHY BRYCESON* Studies on Third World peasantries display a variety of approaches to their subject matter. Most aim to describe the conditions of life of the peasantries anthropologically, socio-economically arid/or physically. This paper by contrast seeks to theoretically define the nature of Third World peasantries vis-a-vis their social totality. The first two sections are devoted to a consideration of primitive accumulation and imperialism as described by Marx and Lenin respectively. Both primitive accumulation and imperialism are important historical processes of capitalist development, relevant to the formation of today's Third World peasantries. Section Three attempts to establish the relationship between imperialism and primitive accumulation through a review of recent historical materialist analyses dealing with the nature of Third World social formations and their articulation to capital. Criticism will be levelled at the failure to regard the significance of primitive accumulation and imperialism as historical processes. Amongst these analyses, two approaches are discernible: 1. The first being posited on the view of primitive accumulation and imperialism as primarily a historical, overlooking the specificity of the process of primitive accumulation spatially and temporally and the need to historically periodicize it vis-a-vis pre-capitalist modes of production. This arises because of particular misinterpretations of the historical materialist concepts of social production and reproduction. 2. The second being posited on the view of primitive accumulation and imperialism as historical epochs or alternatively historical interludes, thereby failing to correctly identify the actual operation of primitive accumulation and imperialism as social processes. Section Four focusses on the object of analysis, Third World peasantries. It is argued that the peasantry is not a distinct form of economy and society. The widely varying natures of peasantries under different historical epochs points to the necessity to theorize the peasantry as a labour * Assistant Research Fellow, BRALUP. 95 process to be understood within the context of specific modes of production or articulations of modes of production. Section Five attempts to draw together the arguments of previous sections by a re-consideration of primitive accumulation and imperialism in relation to Third World peasant reproduction and its convergence with capitalist reproduction. The meaning and significance of social production and reproduction are stipulated at the outset of the section, serving to specify the conceptual context of the analysis. 1. Primitive Accumulation Primitive accumulation was first described materialistically by Marx (Capital Vol. 1) as the process through which the embryonic capitalist mode of production arose and extended itself while dissolving the feudal mode of1 production. In its original form, primitive accumulation was a class struggle of an intense and evolutionary nature. The culmination of this class struggle was on the one hand, the dispossession of the means of subsistence and means of production from the producers and on the other, their concentration in the hands of non-producers, i . e . capitalists. The ultimate result of primitive accumulation at this early stage was revolutionary in terms of giving rise to new production relations with the creation of two new classes. Once concentration of the means of production had progressed to the extent that capitalist control of production was sufficiently consolidated, capitalism entered its competitive stage. Primitive accumulation as a process of dispossession of the producers continued to operate in the remaining areas of peasant production, giving rise to the development of a latest reserve population for wage labour. Primitive accumulation was no longer the center of the class struggle for domination and exploitation but rather it peripherally acted on the center where the capitalist class appropriated absolute and relative surplus value from the working class. The capitalist class was able to use the latent surplus population specifically as a weapon against working class demands. The presence of a latent surplus population facilitated the intensification of the exploitation of wage labour threatened with replacement and loss of their means of subsistence. In this manner; the process of primitive accumulation was indirectly instrumental for capitalist appropriation of absolute surplus value during the competitive stage of capitalist development. The epoch of Monopoly capitalism was marked by the centralization of the means of production, and the expansion of capital to unprecedented levels. Imperialist acquisition of cheap raw materials and labour power which continues up to the present day, serves to lower capitalist production costs. 96 The lowering of production costs facilitates the appropriation of relative surplus value from wage labour in the metropoles. Through imperialist expansion, the process of primitive accumulation gains significance in relation to lands encompassing the glove which hitherto had only marginal trading contact with capital. At this stage primitive accumulation takes the new form of colonialism and later neo-colonialism, with distinct differences when compared with its classical f()rm. Primitive accumulation can no longer be characterized as a process by which a new embryonic mode of production asserts itself out of the feudal mode or for that matter any other pre-capitalist mode. Primitive accumulation becomes the confrontation between monopoly capital and pre-capitalist modes whose productive forces and relations of production in no way approximate the conditions of existence of capital. Furthermore, the coercive force of suite power is an integral part of the colonial and neo-colonial forms of primitive accumulation. In contrast, in the classical form of primitive accumulation the dispossession of the means of production from the peasantry was the outcome of a spontaneous class struggle where in fact state sanctions were yet on the side of those being dispossesed from the beginning of the process in the late 15th century to the 18th century (Marx, Capital V01. I; 718- 724). Marx stOutedthat primitive accumulation is neither a unitary nor a universally uniform process. "The expropriation of the agricultural producer, of the peasant, from the soil is the basis of the whole process. The history of this expropriation in different countries I assumes different orders of succession, and at different periods. In England alone, which we take as our example, has it the classic form". (Capital Vol. 1: 716) The paradoxical fact that the colonial and neo-colonial forms of primitive accumulation generally have not -resulted in the expropriation of peasant producers' means of production must be understood in light of the variability of the process of primitive accumulation. This becomes especially true when considering the implantation of capital in pre-capitalist modes other than feudalism. Under th~se circumstances entirely different manifestations of the primitive accumulation process arise which reflect the nature ~f the pre-capitalist modes in combination with The capitalist mode of production. The difference between the articulated transition of feudalism to capitalism versus other pre-capitalist modes of productions' articulation to capital is difficult to generalize. Perhaps the difference is best understood by posing a question. To what degree did other modes of production 97 approximate the conditions which feudalism established for capitalist develop- ment? These conditions were surplus production, and a oivision of labour in combination with commodityproduction commonlyreferred to as handicraft. The economic base of handicraft was an underlying assumption of Marx's conception of classical primitive accumulation. "A certain accumulation of capital, in the hands of individual producers of commodities, forms therefore the necessary preliminary of the specifically capitalistic mode of production . We had, therefore, to assume that this occurs during the transition from handicraft to capitalistic industry. It may be called primitive accumulation, because it is the historic basis, instead of the historic result of specifically capitalist production." (Capital Vol.l: 624) The fundamental (lnd defining identity between the classical form of primitive accumulation and its colonial and neo-colonial forms is that all can be understood as providing the histo~ic basis of the capitalist mode of production, although in the latter forms the historic basis is founded at different levels of productive forces and production relations. Marx's periodization of primitive accumulation as the historic. basis of capitalism rather than its historic result requires further enquiry. While Marx specified there were different forms of primi1;i~eaccumulation, nevertheless perhaps it is incorrect to view colonialism and neo-colonialism as more recent forms of primitive accumulation. Many people studying these phenomena consider the consolidation of competitive capitalism in Western Europe and North America as evidence of the foundation of a world-wide historic basis of capital. To them colonial territories and neo-colonial nation-states represent underdeveloped capitalist SOcial formations. What they tend to overlook is the fact that the conditions of capitalist reproduction are far from indigenized in the colonial and neo-colonial social formations. "The capitalist system pre-supposes the complete separation of the labourers from all property in the means by which they can realize their labour. " (Marx, Capital Vol.l: 714) Clearly primitive accumulation continues to operate until these conditions are realized. "The process therefore that dears the way for the capitalist system, can be none other than the process which takes away from the labourer the possession of his means of production; a process that transforms, on the one hand, the social means of subsistence and of production into capital, on the other, the immediate 98 producers inlo wnge-labourers. The so-called primitive iJeeUmUlalion, thereJ'ol'e, is nothing els~' tJ1iJnthe historical process of divorcing the produC'"C'I' from till' me,IDSofproduclion," (Marx. Capitnl, Vo!'l: 71.4) flow and why the process of primitive accumulMion aplK'ill'S in pre-capitalist modes of production throughout the world, bevond tIll' original birthplace of capital was to be illurn.tnated by Lenin through his study of impellalism. 11. Imperialism The hypothetical question as to whether all pre-capitalist modes of production would eventually transcend to capitalism iIli. answerable only in terms of baseless conjecturing. The tnsk of scientific aniJlysis is to analyze abstractly and concretely real social phenomena. The pertinent question to ask is not about the possible evolution of pre-capitalist modes of production to capitalism but rather why the capitalist mode has the tendency to encompass and then dominate all other pre-capitalist modes of production. Marx did not address this issue in any detail because monopoly capitalism and its imperialist tendencies were only beginning to evidence themselves at the dme of his writing. Colonialism existed, but it was still primarily facilitating the development of merchant capital which had yet to be affected by banking and industrial capital. Lenin's writings are contemporary with the rise of monopoly c~pital. Lenin's (1969 (1917) Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism described monopoly capital as the concentration of-production and capital at a very advanced stage of development. Monopoly capital signified the end of the dominance of competitive capital and the growth dynamic engendered by the competition of small private capitalIst enterprises. The development of productive forces could no longer be contained by competitive capitalism. The extended reproduction of monopoly capital resulted in the prolifcrntion of investments, markets and new sources of raw material s to facilitate the development of national capitals which however, defied national boundaries. The capitalist states territorially divided the world through colonial annexation in an attempt to guarantee their national mOl1opolycapitals' investment opportunities and sources of raw materials, Imperialism was depicted as the phenomenon of self -expanding extended reproduction of capital dynamized by monopoly competition. Lenin described monopoly competition, as the process of centralization of capital in the organizational form of syndicates, cartels and trusts situated within 99 particular national capitals. Furthermore, Lenin noted that some national capitals advanced far beyond others to gain a monopolist position (Lenin 1969: 62). In conjunction with the force of capitalist state power these national capitals expanded their reproduction to encompass raw materials, markets and investment in areas hitherto untouched by capitalism * The question here arises as to how Marx's conception of primitive accumulation and Lenin's conception of imperialism relate. Lenin approaches imperialism from the side of monopoly capital itself and says little about its effects on pre-capitalist modes of production, besides the following: "As long as capitalism remains what.it i s , surplus capital will never be utilised for the purpose of raising the standard of living of the masses in a given country, for this would mean a decline in profits for the capitalists; it will be used for the purpose of increasing those profits by exporting capital abroad to the backward countries. In these backward countries profits are usually high, for capital is relatively low, wages are low, raw materials are cheap. The possibility of exporting capital is created by the fact that numerous backward countries have been drawn into international capitalist intercourse; main railways have either been built or are being built there; the elementary conditions for industrial development have been created, etc."( Lenin 1969 (1917): 63). With the benefit of more information on pre-capitalist social formations, the relationship between primitive accumulation and imperialism becomes more apparent although as the next section will show there is much debate. Lenin's work is very crucial to the present debate, especially with regard to two aspects. Firstly, Lenin established imperialism as a particular historical phase of capitalist development. "Imperialism emerged as the development and direct continuation of the fundamental characteristics of capitalism in general. But capitalism only became capitalist imperialism at a definite and very high stage of its development, when certain of its fundamental characteristics began to change into their opposites, when the features of the epoch of transition from capitalism to a higher social and economic system had taken shape and revealed themselves in all spheres". (Lenin 1969(1917): 88) Secondly, monopoly capital expansion was motivated by big profits (Lenin> 1969(1917): 63), however the costs of colonialism were considerable, to the extent of hindering development in the imperialist country (Lenin 1969(1917); 65). This seeming contradiction was resolved by Lenin who 100 recognized the primary importance of colonies as sources of raw materials in the face of monopoly' competition. "Finance capital is not only interested in the already known 'sources of raw materials; it is also interested in the potential sources of raw materials, because present-daY technical development is extranely rapid, aIJ.dbecause land which is useless today may be made fertile tomorrow if new methods are applied ••• "(Lenin 1969 (1917): 83) "Colonial possession alone gives complete guarantee of success to the monopolies against all the risks of the struggle with competitors, including the risk that the latter will defend themselves by means of a law estab- lishing a state monopoly. The more capitalism is developed, the more the need for raw materials is felt, the more bitter competition becomes, and the more feverishly the hunt for raw materials proceeds throughout the whole world, the more desperate becomes the struggle for the acquisition of colonies". (Lenin 1969 (1917): 82). III. The Relationship between Primitive Accumulation and Imperialism Primitive accumulation and imperialism appear in the works of Marx and Lenin respectively as descriptions of historical stages of capitalist develop- ment. If one were oblivious to the method of abstraction of historical materialism one could readily conclude that primitive accumulation and imperialism were originally intended as concepts explaining in a one-to-one correspondence the historical reality of a particular time and place. This would be incorrect. Primitive accumulation and imperialism denote general, abstract historical processes applicable to the analysis of any concrete situations evidencing the characteristics described by'Marx and Lenin. Confusion however has arisen in their analytical usage. This section is divided into two main parts: the first part composed of a review of two analyses which ignore the status of primitive accumulation and imperialiSlIl as historical processes, generalizing them to the operation of 'the capitalist mode of production as a whole. The second part reviews three analyses of underdevelopment which define primitive accumulation and imperialism as historical epochs or interludes, thereby ignoring their dynamics as historical processes in the development of the capitalist mode of production. A. Ahist9rical Conceptions of Primitive Accumulation and Imperialism: 1. Rosa Luxemburg Rosa Luxemburg was one of the first to theorize a relationship between primitive accumulation and imperialism. Essentially her position 101 was that both imperialism and primitive accumulation are inextrlC'il Lly a part of capitalist development but disloegarded their originill status as historical processes. "At the time of primitive accumulation, i •.e. ~t th.e ('no of the Middle Ages, when the history of capltah sm III . Europe begcw-,and right into the nineteenth cen!ury', diS- possessing the peasants in England and on the Contment was the most striking weapon in the large-scall" tra~s- l'ormation of means of production and labour power lllto capital. Yet capital in power performs the same task even to-day, and on even more important scale - by modern colonial policy". (Luxemburg 1951 (1913): 369-37()) Luxemburg attempted to go beyond describing imperialism emu instead, analytically di,ssect it, in relation 'to capitalist reproduction. She argued that capitalist simple reproduction was self-contained whereas extended reproduction was notrealizable without an exogenous market. This conclusion followed from the contradiction she posited between the expansion of capitalist production and the full realization of surplus value. 1_uxemburg~)E'l ieved that under conditions of capitalist expansion the necessary diversion of capital to new inves1ments would cause the realization of surplus value on old invest_ ments to fall short. The cause of this was the failure of the consuming power' of capitalist society to absorb the capitalist production arising from both new and old investments. Luxemburg's main thesis was that capital's extended reproduction was imperialist by nature, in its requirement for exogenous markets. The search and establishment of exogenous markets led to the process of primitive accumulation as a necessary condition of capitalist development. "Historically, the accumulation of capital is a kind of metabolism between capitalist economy and those pre- capitaHst methods of production without which It can- not go on and which, in this light, it corrodes and assimilates". (Luxemburg 1951 (1913): 416) Primitive accumulation thus becomes the process of destruction of natural economies throughout the world. Imperialism gives rise to primitive accumulation, but"the relationship is inherently contradictory. " ••• capital cannot accumulate without the aid of non- capitalist organizations, nor, on the other hand, can it tolerate their continued existence side by side with itself. Only the continuous and progressive disirtegration .of non-capitalist organizations.. makes accumulation of capital possible". (Luxemburg 1951 (913): 416) 102 Luxemburg. distinguished three phases of primitive accumulation all of which are brought about by the application of force. "we must distinguish three phases: the struggle of capital against natural economy, the struggle against commodity economy, and the competitive struggle of capital on the international stage for the remaining conditions of accumulation." (Luxemburg 1951 (1913): 368) Subsidiary to her main market thesis, Luxemburg argued that capitalist extended reproduction required free access to ever fresh sources of raw materials arising from both new or increased needs, as well as to replace depleted sources. Luxemburg's contribution to the theoretical understanding of primitive accumulation was the recognition that the process of primitive accumulation in relation to pre-capitalist modes of production other than feudalism can be traced back to a stage preceding handicraft commodity production. While this is a significant contribution, nevertheless, there are very fundamental problems with her work as a whole. Luxemburg's market thesis is based on a serious oversight in her reading of Capital. As Bradby (1975) correctly pointed out, capital's extended reproduction does not inherently jeopardize surplus value realization. The capitalist accumulation process is accompanied by increasing productivity in the economy which constantly lowers exchange value while creating greater and greater masses of use values. Lowered exchange value pre-empts the problem of the capitalist society's consumptive ability to absorb capitalist production. Bradby incisively recognized that Luxemburg's market thesis contradicts her secondary thesis on capital's imperialist expansion for raw materials. The market thesis generalized imperialism to the capitalist mode of production regardless of its level of development. The secondary raw material thesis, on the other hand, followed Lenin's conception of imperialism, viewing imperialism as essentially an historical phenomenon arising from the needs of capitalist production at a particular historical conjuncture. Bradby also criticized Luxemburg for generalizing capital's application of force to the entire process of primitive accumulation. Bradby adhering -to the classical conception of primitive accumulation, argued that primitive accumulation can eventually result in capital's forcible expropriation of the producers' means of production and land and the exploitation of their labour, but producers cannot be directly coerced to come to the market and buy commodities, which is central to Luxemburg's market thesis. Again a reflection of Luxemburg's ahistorical biase. 103 Bradby explained: "The role of force is not in introducing commodity exchange, but rather in forcing people to give up natural resources by any means other than a fair exchange. It is therefore linked with Luxemburg's 'weak thesis* (raw material thesis), not with the 'strong thesis* (market thesis), so that we can say that the use of force arises out of concrete needs in different branches of capitalism at different times, and not out of any permanent necessity". (Bradby 1975: 141) Finally, it is necessary to note that while Luxemburg drew attention to the operation of primitive accumulation in precapitalist modes of production other than feudalism, nevertheless her consideration of the significance of the pre-capitalist mode in its confrontation with capital does not extend far enough. Luxemburg never adequately considered the nature of internal conditions in the pre-capitalist modes of production. In her theoretical formulation, pre-capitalist modes are merely external markets for capital or sources of raw materials. This is why Luxemburg so easily reduces imperialist penetration to force. If she had considered the pre-capitalist mode of production she would have been in a position to recognize the -possibility for the introduction of commodity exchange peacefully in pre- capitalist modes of production characterized by a certain level of productive forces amd production relations. 2. Claude Meillassoux Meillassoux's work (1972, 1974- and 1975) exemplifies an attempt to consider the nature of pre-capitalist modes in the process of primitive accumulation under imperialism. His attempt however is undermined by his failure to understand the historical character of imperialism and primitive accumulation. The following critique of his work relies heavily on O'Laughlin's (1977) review of Meillassoux's latest book Femmes, Greniers et Capitaux which is as yet unobtainable in English. Meillassoux, in his book Femmes, Greniers et Capitaux defined imperialism as the mode of reproduction of cheap labour power. In so doing he posited a contradiction between capitalist production and capitalist reproduction. Unlike Marx, Meillassoux did not view capitalist production and capitalist reproduction as a necessarily unitary social process. Identify- ing capitalist reproduction as synonymous with biological reproduction of labour power, Meillassoux proceeded to theorize that capitalist production does not guarantee its own reproduction (i.e. biological reproduction). 104 Hence, capital's imperialist expansion arises as the means of cheap secure- ment of labour power originating from pre-capitalist modes of production. Primitive accumulation becomes the process whereby capital penetrates pre-capitalist modes of production and harnesses labour power. Meillassoux theoretically generalized pre-capitalist modes of production to a classless domestic mode of production where the relations of reproduction and not the relations of production are seen as dominant. The dynamic of the domestic mode of production is projected towards population growth instead of accumulation of surplus production as in modes of production where classes are present. In this way the domestic mode of production has a tendency to develop a surplus population. Surplus population as available labour power, attracts capital to the domestic mode of production because it provides the resolution of the contradiction between capitalist production and capitalist reproduction. Meillassoux referred to imperialist intervention and the harnessing of the surplus labour power of the domestic mode of production as 'super- exploitation' , implying that this labour power is not fully remunerated accord- ing to its value. The inevitable question as to why workers submit to super- exploitation while still maintaining access to their means of production ( i . e . the land) was explained by Meillassoux in terms of an imperialist initiative. Imperialism in the form of colonial state -power introduces and propagates taxation, monetization and forced labour. In this way, the domestic mode of production is articulated to the capitalist mode of production in a position of sub-ordinance. Meillassoux's attempt to understand the nature'of a pre-capitalist mode of production both before and during the process of primitive accumulation under imperialism is a contribution to the theoretical study of primitive accumulation and imperialism. Meillassoux, however, made many methodol- ogical errors which Bridgette O'Laughlin (1977) uncovered in her critique of Femmes,. Greniers et Capitaux. "Firstly, Meillassoux ignored the distinction Marx made between 'labour' and 'labour power1. Labour power is particular to the capitalist mode of production and signifies a specific class relation of capitalism. Labour power defined as the capacity for labour connotes human labour alienated from the means of production. Workers have no other choice than to sell their labour power in exchange for a wage, which provides the basis for subsistence. Meillassoux generalized the concept labour power to the domestic mode of production by arguing that capital cannot guarantee its own conditions of reproduction and must seek labour power from an exogenous 105 source. But clearly labour power does not exist in the domc!'ti<.: mode of production until capital itself creates it through expropriation. Secondly, Meillassoux mystified the concept or mode or production by !'eparating production and reproduction within the same mode of production, implying that reprodu.:tion is synonymous with biological reproduction and generalizable to all modes of production. Meillassoux can thus distinguish two separate, articulated modes of pro'ductiori solely on the oasis of the form of production they manifest. For example, Meillassoux can choose to ignore the dominance of wage labour in a SOcial formation focussing his attention instead on the vestige pre-capitalist form of production. In this way, the nature of the articulation of capital to the pre-capitalist mode of production is mystifi ed. The reproduction of capital and the reproduction of the pre-capitalist mode of production must be distinguished theoretically as well as empirically. The mitial point of contact between the two modes of production affects their respective.modes of reproduction and not production. The reproduction of the pre-capitalist mode of production gradually merges with capital's reproduction. When can we say that the pre-capitalist mode of production ceases to exist? The deficiencies of Meillassoux' s theoretical constructs are revealed in his answer to this question. By separating production within particular modes of production from their congruent modes of reproduction Meillassoux can view even minor vestiges and mere remnants of the pre-capitalist labour process as signs of the existence of a pre-capitalist mode of production. In this way, just as Meillassoux saw imperialism as a necessary general condition of capitalist production, so too he viewed primitive accumulation as forever manifesting itself in the articulation of the domestic mode to the capitalist mode of production even at very advanced stages of capitalist development e.g. representing the domestic labour of womenin the capitalist family as the domestic mode of p"..oduction. O'Laughlin correctly identified Meillassoux's methodological error. "The sphere of capitalist production is identified with the capitalist mode of production; inversely all forms of non-wage labour are presumed to define non-capitalist modes of production. Meillassoux thus constructs a mode of capitalist/non-capitalist articulation which replicates in its analytical categories the dualistic appearance of the world economy. In such an empiricist framework, relations between modes of production are inevitably conceptualized as things; a social formation consists of people and commodities moving between capitalist and non-capitalist modes of production which are also linked by the apparatus of the state". (O'Laughlin 1977: 24) 106 B. Historical Conceptions l'~v:oid of Clarity regarding Primitive Accumulation and Imperi ilism as Social Processes 1. Bridget O'Laughlin 0' Laughlin in her critique 'Production and Reproduction: Meil1assoux's Femmes, Greniers et Capitaux' poses a methodological question of what a theory of imperialism should be. "Although any general theory of imperialism is a theory of ~apitalist development, one must theorize non-capitalist modes of production and their relation to capital as well". (O'Laughlin 1977: 11) O'Laughlin insisted on "a theo;ry of imperialism grounded in production" (O'Laughlin 1977: 25), rejecting Meillassoux's dualist conception of imperialism based on a separation between production and reproduction. The two premises that buttress her position are: firstly, that production and reproduction of a mode of production constitute a unitary process. Secondly, the distinction between theoretical and empirical space, is such that historical materialist abstractions are not intended to offer a one-to-one correspondence with reality. Both premises are valid and in fact necessary, but O'Laughlin contorts them. She disregarded the existence of two distinct modes of production (i. e. the capitalist mode and a pre-capitalist mode) with their two different and "'>;lct unitary processes of production and reproduction gradually merging 1 LCO vne mode of production after the productive base of the subordinate mode of production is destroyed by capital. Secondly, O'Laughlin failed to apply the full implications of her methodological criticisms to her own analysis. The theoretical concepts used for the analysis of imperialism exist in the matrix of other concepts which cannot be ignored. While it is true that we must always distinguish analytical and empirical space, the question remains as to why pre-capitalist modes of production are considered non-entities as soon as imperialism penetr-ates, ruling out the possibility of the articulatW;>llof modes of production entirely. In other words primitive accumulation is completely dismissed. To Marx 'primitive accumulation' was both empiric~l and theoretIcal. Empirically it was the process he documented taking place in England, but beyond that and of far greater significance it was an abstraction of capital's confrontation with pre-capitalist modes of production. O'Laughlin ignored the process of primitive accumulation and thereby tacitly reiected its theoretical validity. 107 Her position implicitly reflects the view that the historical basis for capitalism .was established on a world-wide level in the transition from feudalism to capitalism in Western Europe. Pre-capitalist modes of production appear to persist in other parts of the world until imperialist penetration when they at once become non-entities vestige appearance as pre-capitalist forms of production. She cited Marx to support her. "Marx (cf. Capital 111) considered it historically appropriate to apply the concept of mode of production to discrete capitalist and non-capitalist productive systems linked through the market only for the period of domination of merchant capital. With the rise of industrial capital, however, he thought it necessary to drop the assumption of spatially separated modes of production, in the context of an expanding capitalist system, all non-capitalist forms lose their analytical autonomy, for all are shaped by the dynamics of the capital/labour relation. Thus instead of seeing African villagers, for instance, as settled down with their hoes in a pre-capitalist mode of production, one would assume that the movement of present village life is shaped within production by capitalist as well as pre- capitalist modes of production." (O'Laughlin 1977, 24-25) The quote ends on an extremely ambiguous note, besides the questional assertion made in the name of Marx. One can easily quote Marx to support the view that primitive accumulation was in operation with the presence of distinct modes of production long after industrial capital was fully established. "In Western Europe, the home of Political Economy, the process of primitive accumulation is more or less accomplished. Here the capitalist regime has either directly conquered the whole domain of national production, or, where economic conditions are less developed, it, at least, indirectly controls those strata of society which, though belonging to the antiquated mode of production, continue to exist side by side with it in gradual decay". (Marx Capital Vol.1; 765) O'Laughlin1 s argument is highly contradictory. It appears that O'Laughlii) mistook the dominance of capital over pre-capitalist modes of production to be exclusive and hence argued that empirically only 'forms' of pre-capitalist production remain which nevertheless can be analyzed ac the theoretical level of modes of production. 2. Geoffrey Kay Gepffrey Kay (1975) appears to reject Lenin's classical formulation of imperialism and finance capital. Finance capital is conceptualized as merely a 'form of circulation capital' (Kay 1975: 90). Thus there can be no sense of 108 an epoch of capitalist development characterized by the expansion. of capital's extended reproduction 0n a new scale with the merger of banking and industrial capital to create finance capital. The notion of primitive accumulation appears but is never named as such. "The vast commercial empires set up by the Spanish and Portuguese and later QYthe British, French and Dutch, established the basis of the modern econbmy. They <;oncentrated vast accumulations of wealth in the form of capital, while overthrowing and pillaging whole civilizations". (Kay 1975: 96) From this passage it .becomes clear that Kay like O'Laughlin con<;eptualized primitive accumulation as one and only one process which established the world-wide basis of capital by the beginning of the 18th century. As we have seen in O'LaughUn's work, th:i,.sformulation besides its methodological shortcomings, leaves a rather inexplicable gap in the historical development of Third World social formations between the period of primitive accumulation during .the 15th to 18th century and the late 19th century colonial expansion of capital. Kay's work however seems intent on closing that gap and developing a theoretical conception of an historical continuum arising from the earliest penetration of foreign merchant capital in the Third World. Briefly he periodicized the historical development of Third World social formations as: 1) The period of primitive accumulation whereby vast amounts of wealth were accumulated in conjunction with.:the transformation of feu.l purely economic mechanisms." (Bradby 1975: 150) In criticizing Bradby's analysis, it is initially useful to compare it with the analyses of Luxemburg and Meillassoux. Bradby like Luxemburg and Meillassoux conceived imperialism engendering primitive accumulation in pr.e-capitalist modes of prbduction. She identified the process of primitive accumulation with the articulation of modes of production as Meillassoux did. Howeyer her understanding of primitive accumulation and imperialism and their relationship to one another differed markedly with their historical conceptions. Bradby viewed imperialism as a historical phenomenon arising from capital's expansion of production requiring an expanding resource base. Primitive accumulation was seen as not only historical but qualified as historically specific, occurring sporadically and in numerous places as 113 interludes in response to the needs of certain branches of capitalist production for raw materials or labour. One is struck with the arbitrary nature Bradby gave to imperialism and especi<;,-llyprimitive accumulation. Bradby implied that imperialism can disappear as soon as a historical stage of capitalist development is reached whereby capital itseTf can produce the raw materials required or the stage when all potential sources of raw materials are taken over. Whereas primitive accumulatlon apparently can be turned on tmd off like a faucet at the will of different branches of capital. In other words, the process of primitive accumulation can be implanted in E' c('rtain mode of production and then disappear when capital has no irrunediate interest in it. This conception is acceptable only if we assume that the process of primitive accumulation has been very superficially imposed by external force, and not internalized by the pre-capitalist mode of production. ThiS formulation is a disservice to the insight Bradby provided concerning the law of value ,\S an objective force whose operation in the pre-capitalist mode tends to trigger transition to capitalist production relations. Bradby's analysis suffers from economistic and functiollalist assumptions. Bradby analyzerl at the level of structural economic change disregarding changes oj a political nature which are in fact indicative of fundamental changes in the production relations. Bradby.ignored much of Lenin's thesis on imperialism. Lenin observed that imperialism marked the rise not only of an unprecedented scale of capital's extended reproduction requirin~ an expanded resollcce base, but also the colonial state as guaranter of bourgeois interests seized land both with and without immediate economic potential. This must be understood in terms of inter- imperialist rivalry; secondary contradictions which nevertheless become determining with regard to particular pre-capitalist social formations. Bradby's work veers towards functionalism, with its iniplicit assumption that the articulation of pre-capitalist modes of production are instituted or dissolved as dIctated by the capitalist profit motive. While Bradby succeeded in goin"gbeyond Luxemburg's position by her recognition that some pre-capItalist modes of production are more easily penetrable by capital than others, "Bradby failed to"develop her ideas sufficiently with regard to the role of the 'Sub-ordinate pre-capitalist mocks of production. Instead Bradby resort~d to.a functionalist argument which assumes that capital's dictates will be determinate in all inst ances, de- emphasizing the contradictions that can and do arise. Historical.materlalist analyses degenerates into "functionalist logic when the existence of a social 114 form is explained-in terms of the contribution it makes to the reproduction of a given system of production.. In non-class societies, it is simply presumed that a practice is reproduced because it is logically compatible with the requirement of the mode of production. . . . In class societies, however, it is logically compatible with the domination of the ruling class; causes, if they are considered at all, are assumed to lie in the directing power of the ruling- class state and ruling-class ideology. . . . The basic difficulty with this assumption is that it fails to recognize that all emergent social forms are the product of material contradictions which are quite different from the consequences that they have either for a particular class or for the system as a whole". (O'Laughlin 1977: 27) IV; The^Peasant Labour Process The aim of this section is to'provide the background for a more narrowly focus sed analysis of primitive accumulation and imperialism in relation to the peasantry'in Section V. The peasantry is defined and the notion that the peasantry constitutes a specific economy and society is rejected, throtgh a critique of the writings of Chayonov. By way of illustration elements of present day peasant production and reproduction are identified with the mediation of capital * Peasant production is a mode of oiganization of the labour process characterized by family labour engaged in land husbandry. Peasant production does not constitute a mode of production in the sense of being an. economy structured by the articulated combination of relations and forces of production. Peasant production is rather subsumed within various modes of production, its specific nature as a labour process depends on the mode of production in which it exists as well as other modes that might be articulated to that mode. Chayonov (1966) wrongly tried to portray independent peasant production as existing in a specific economy and society regardless of any mode of production. Chayonov characterized peasant production in terms of a family labour farm with a single labour income and a labour-consumer balance, the latter being determined by the biological life cycle of the family. Littlejohn (1977) showed how the notion of an independent peasantry is entirely misleading. "The independent peasantry can only exist with commodity production and generalised commodity production entails the eclipse of the independent peasantry by capitalist farming. Nor can the 'independent peasantry' exist in the 115 same form under different modes of production such as feudalism or the ancient mode of production. As we have seen the peasantry paying feudal money-rent is not economically independent". (Littlejohn 1977: 29) The rejection of Chayonov's theoretical categorization of the peasantry necessitates a theoretical alternative. The peasantry can best be ,generally theorlzed as a labour process. At the abstract level Marx formulated the concept of the 'labour process' in isolation form any social relations of production definin~ it as: "Human action with a view to the production of use-values, appropriation.of natural substances to human require- ments". (Marx, Capital Vol. l: 183) More specifically in dealing with an actual social labour process, for example Marx'Sl analysis of the capitalist labour process, a recognition of the SOcialrelations of production is imperative. Clearly, Chaybnov failed to distinguish the general and specific levels of analysis, limiting himself to a partial and general understanding of peasant production which he then simply imposed at the specific level. As a consequence, Chayonov equated the labour process with the relations of production. While the two concepts cannot be separated in. specific analysis, clarity at the abstract and general levels of analysis distinguishes the form of production, i. e. the labour process from the far more significant nature of production as manifested in the production relations. The peasant labour process as a form of production exists in several modes of production and can be abstracted and generalized. However, in specific analysis the nature of the peasant labour process, despite its seemingly ahistorical form, profoundly reflects the production relations and devel(\pment of the productive forces of the 'prevailing mode or articulation of modes of production. By way of further explanation, the peasant labour process can be traced from the natural economy where production is restricted to use values at very low levels of the development of the productive forces, through various modes of production which subject peasant production to a variety of land tenure systems with their attendant modes of appropriation and appropriating classes. Generally, peasant production of exchange value, i.e. commodityproduction is not very significant until the encroachment of the capitalist mode of production. In the face of the capitalist mode of production, peasant production appears conservative and technically back- ward. There are objective reasons for this. The utilizatit')n of family la:eour with the object of production bein~ the reproduction of this family 116 labour does not create a distinction between necessary and surplus labour. The significance of this is that while a capitalist farmer must respond to increases in ~he wages of labour power with mechanization of the labour process! the peasant with his seemingly free family labour maintains his techniques of production ?rganizing his production on the basis ..of equalizing labour intensity throughout the year (Cutler 1975: 80:81). However, the peasant labour process is by -p.omeans intractable when subsumed to the capitalist mode of production, contrary to the impression conveyed by Chayanov. Once the peasant family is afforded the opportunity of purchasing necessary consumer products on the market the family can rationalize their production by specializing production and substituting purchased goods for those products with greater labour demands (Littlejohn 1977: 7 and Cutler 1975: 81). In other words, the peasants' maintenance of pre-capitalist calculation depends on whether the reproduction of subsistence can take place in isolation from the capitalist sector. "The increasing entrance into the capitalist market has the effect that the peasants become dependent not on peasant calculation and the conq.itions of production on the peasant unit but rather on the relative prices of subsistence to cash crops. If it is impossible for the peasant to meet their own subsistence crops then cultivation of cash crops is the necessary alternative, the higher the relative price of the subsi'stence crop the greater proportion of peasant labour has to be expanded on the cash crop". (Cutler 1975: 81). In conclusion, to understand the peasantries of Third World social formations of the present day it is necessary to recognize that the peasant labour process and its changing content reflect the production relations of the prevailing modes of production. V. Peasant Production and Reproduction This section seeks to tie the threads together of the preceding sections. Firstly my analytical framework is stipulated in order to avoid some of the methodological errors of the analyses so far reviewed. A schematic presentation of the very cOID,plex development of the articulation- between Third World social formations and capital 4011ows.This is not an attempt to reduce historical materialism to model- building, nor is it meant as a simplified representation of any specific example of the articulation of modes of production. Rather the diagrams are merely intended as visual abstractions depicting the dialectical development of movement between the capitalist and pre-capitalist modes of production. 117 A. Analytical Framework: A 'mode of production1 is an abstraction denoting the articulated combination of relations and forcer, of production structured by the relations of production. The relations of production refer to7 the mode of exploitation and its attendant class structure. The^orces of production1 signify the specific form of the articulation of the instruments and objects of production with the labour process. The 'social formation' at a more concrete level of analysis denotes the structure of social relations in the economic, ideological and political spheres. Friedman (1976) criticized the analytical power of the concept 'mode of production' arguing that the mode of production as relations of exploitation and appropriation and relations of production does not denote a total social system. It does not include the relations of realisation and circulation which are necessary for distinguishing a reproductive totality (See Friedman 1§76: 15); Friedman's conclusion was as follows: "We should, therefore, like to maintain relations of exploitation-appropriation and relations of realisation, circulation plus forces of production as the significant theoretical totality. For this reason it seems warranted to reject the notion of mode of production along with that of 'society' as ideological reifications that hamper rather than help our scientific work". (Friedman 1976: 1.6) Friedman's criticism is indeed correct insofar as anyone theoretically specified mode of production may not provide a full understanding of a given social totality, but he cannot justifiably go further to reject the 'mode of production1 concept. Modes of production provide the constituent parts of a social reproductive totality which can be analyzed in terms of the 'articulation of modes of production1. The various modes of production with their respective modes of exploitation and appropriation are studied in view of their inter—connectedness to one another. Their cycles of reproduction become mutually conditioning through the sphere of circulation, warfare etc. Yet they must be distinguished as distinct modes of production until their production relations and forces of production become one through the increasing dominance of the more advanced mode of production. B. > Reproduction and Production in the Articulation of Modes of Production. Social reproduction denotes a continuous process of production and consumption in society. Production leads to consumption which leads to production. The conditions of production are also those of reproduction. 118 The conditions of material reproduction in any particular society arise from the mode of production or articulation of modes of production In the work. of Marx: "A Soclety can no more cease to produce than it can cease to consume. When viewed, therefore, as a connected whole, and as fl,>wingon with incessant renewal, every social process of production is, at the same time, a proc.ess of reproduction!'. (Marx Capital Vol. I: 566) Diagrammatically this can be illustrated as: Marx was explicit that "If production be capltalistic in form, so, too will be reproduction". (Vol. I: 516). How do we reconcile this with Friedman's observation that conditions of reproduction.may not be entirely endogenous to a particular mode of production especially with regard to relations of realization, and circulation? It can be explained by the puzzling statement that the conditions of existence of production and reproduction for any particular mode may be exogenous. Diagrammatically, it is perhaps more clear. As soon as we consider twu modes of production in relation to one another, we are in other words studying the articulation of modes of production. What forms can the articulation of modes of production takes? In the classical case of primitive accumvlation described by Marx, capitalism grew out of the conditions of feudalism and in the process dissolved 119 feudalism. The darker circle imposed on the spiral represents a qualitative boundary demarcating the destruction of the feudal peasantry to the critical point where labour power appears, and we cun speak of the existence of the capitalist mode of prod11-ctionbased on capitalist relationg of product ion. Capitalist production and reproduction continually expands to the point where the productive forces and the rise of finance capital results in the extended reproduction of the capitalist mode of production on a new scale. The dark circle in this case'repr.esents the boundary of the reproduction of competitive capital, outside of this boundary lies monopoly capital. At this stage, the process of primitive accumulation'merges with imperialism giving rise to the greater likelihood of the confrontation between capital and pre-capitalist modes of production. The articulation of modes of production in the renroductive totality of the world becomes far more complex. 120 The important question to be answered is when does capital become dominant in the pre-capitalist mode. As we have seen in Section Three this has been answered in a number of ways. Luxemburg viewed capitalist extended reproduction as. synonymous with the contemporary operation of imperialism and primitive accumulation. The confrontation and absorption of exogenous pre-capitalist societies would begin as soon as capital had consolidated itself. Capital would be dominant upon penetration of the pre-capitalist society whose extinction would be inevitable eventually. Production Reproduction 121 Meillassoux and O'Laughlin would seem to concur that capital is dotninant at the time of capital's penetration into the pre-capitalist mode. Bradby however suggested the resilience of certain pre-capitalist modes after capital's penetration. This would indicate that dominance is a gradual process and not altogether without setbacks. According to Kay, capital's dominance becomes hazily disti"nguished from the operation of merchant capital. Production All of these analyses fail to notice the significance of capitalist penetration beyond the sphere of the reproduction of the pre-c~pitalist mode into the sphere of pre-capitalist production. In other words, there is a qualitative difference between capitalist penetration in the sphere of reproduction through circulation and/or violent incursions which thereby operate as the 'conditions of existence' of pre-capitalist production versus the actual transformation of pre-capitalist production, both in terms of the pre-capitalist relations of production and productive forces into that of the capitalist mode of production. Until capital penetrates pre-capitalist production 122 through frontal dispossession by frontal moves to eradicate the antiquated low levels of productivity of pre~.capitalist production th.rough effectively dispossessing. the pea.santry of their means of production, the .pre-cap'i+;"list mode of production retains an intact productive base, with relations of production that can and do defy capital's drive lor -eXtendedreproduction. This does not deny the fact that in many 'Cases the conditions of existence of the pre-capitalist mode as defined by capital are vi~ally necessary to the continuing reproduction of the pre-capitalist mode of production. To the extent this happens it is perhaps more significant for,,<;apitalthan the pre- capitalist mode of I>roduction since capital's surplus appropriation is posited on continuity in the productiv~ base whether it be a capitalist or pre-capt!:alist productive base (Marx Capital, Vol. I: 567) All of the preceding diagrams .have failed to show the development of the pre-capitalist mode itself in 'relation to capital. When we say capital disintegrates and des.troys the pre-capitalist mode we cannot however deduce that development 'of the pre-capitalist mode is necessarily impossible. As the articulation between capital and the pre-capitalist mode develops production and surplus generation in the pre-capit'alist mode generally increases but it is reallzable to capital and not the internal surplus appropriating classes. A class struggle is implicit which gives rise to the expansion: or contraction of the pre-capitalist mode based on its own internal dynamic dialectically confronting the dynamic of capital. Having discussed .the reproduction of modes of production in terms of the reproductive totality of the articulation of modes of production, the question remains where Third World peasantries fit in. Section IV estab- lished'that the nature of peasantries were different under different modes of production and went on to suggest a peasantry's characteristics under the increasing dominance of capital. The peasantry reflects the transitional nature of the society. The peasant labour proces'~ geared to the production of use values for family consumption is a manifestation of the pre-capitalist mode of production which is backward and archaic in the face of capital. The important question to ask is why the, peasant labour process is destrOyed gradually and not more rapidly extinguish6llland replaced by a capitalist labour process. How long and why does peasant production' persist after the law of value is set in motion by merchant capital and the coercive force of the colonial state begins to exert itself? In other words how do peasants maintain ownership and control of their Pleans of production and resist proletarianization despite the presence of capital? 123 1st Production Striped areas represent merchant7 capital «in the sphere of production Shaded areas represent industi .al capital in the sphere of production acting to replace pre-capitalist production with capitalist production 124 The answers to these specific questions must be sought by studying the nature of the pre-capitalist model s of production and the nature of capital's extended reproduction, specifically in relation to them. Tfowever, at the general level, we may ask what distinguishes classical primitive accumulation from the process of primitive accumulation engendered by imperialism. The key feature is that direct expropriation of peasants from .the rand and their means of production is not as prevalent in the latter. Why? / Firstly, during the imp~ialist era specific raw materials are the immediate objective of imperialist expansion as well as the guarantee of raw material sources in general vis-a-vis the inter-imperialist rivalry of capitalist nation-states. For anyone pre:..capitalist society, the penetration of capital may wax and wane depending on the immediate need for a specific raw material. Under such circumstances the expropriation of the peasantry becomes crucial to capital only if indigenous wage labour is used for the production or extraction of this raw material. Secondly, primitive accumulation in its classical sense was the process whereby capital asserted itself from within the L...J.dalmode of production. Capital during the imperialist era has already consolidated itself and rests on a firm economic base. Primitive accumulation becomes the confrontation between monopoly capital and pre-capitalist modes whose productive forces and relations of production in no way approximate the conditions of existence of capital. \'/hen capitalist extended reproductionecompasses pre- capitalist reproduction, capitalist reproduction conditions pre-capitalist reproduction and vice-versa. In this state of transition, the reproduction of both modes merging into one another takes on warped forms which are not strictly characteristic of either. The dispossession of the peasantry as a general featurt of capital does not n~cessarily appear under such circums- stances, or is delayed until the conditions of existence of capital, 1. e. commodityproduction are sufficiently dominant. [he implications for Third "T orld peasantries are numerous. Firstly, the peasant labour process is not directly penetrated by capital and instead is only indirectly affected through alteration of the conditi;:;hti of peasant reproduction aimed at stimulating tradable surpluse's through: ]) the introduction of new crops Coftenhigher yielding or servin' to pro! iferate choice of foodstuffs) by travelling traders; 125 2) encouraging the purchase of necessary consumption items as well as creating new needs by offering new commodities for sale; and 3) the intervention of the colonial state and taxation of the peasantry. This move introduced a generalized cash economy. It is important pre-condition of capitalist production relations, but it is not synonymous with them. Secondly, the peasant labour process is gradually transformed thro-qghincreasing commodityproduction. Under the stress of commodity production traditional political and social units are eroded. Although contradictions generally do not manifest themselves in the extreme form of direct divorcement of producers from their means of production, a point does arise when wage labour appears in response to capital investment. Thirdly, the ~uestion of the peasantry vis-a-vis wage labour must,be posed. I\A eillassoux argued that the presence of a peasant ry affords capi1i11 the exploitation of cheap labour. This argUTI1C!lt tt't"ats wl1<1tis symptomatic as causal. 1t is not the mere presence of the peasantry which affords copital chei1plabour but rather it is the outcome of the class struggle bet"'~en metropolitan capital and the peasantry which determines whethel'"Dr not this is true. In connection with this point, the cheap labour of the Third \if0rld cannot be identified with unequal exchange. By definition wage l,dl0ur is financed by productive capital and not circulation capital, i. e. merchaul capital. While Third World wages may appear low in comparison to wages offered in the developed capitalist countries, nevertheless productive capital is paying the price of labour power as it has been determined by the class struggle taking place in the Third World. Fourthly and lastly, the peasant production and reproduction that persists in the face of growing forces towards proletarianization is yet an identifiable entity albeit highly weakened and vulnerable. Under such circumstances, the state may chose to guarantee peasant reproduction if peasant production' is still a viable form of production of required raw materials or if uncontrolled proletarianization is perceived as politicaily destablizing. In these cases famine relief and other safeguard m",as.,r,"';::; are undertaken by the state to ensure peasant reproduction. In conclusion, the process of primitive accumulation which opcrated to destroy the feudal peasantries during the 15th to 18th centt,ry in Europe must be distinguished from the process of primitive accumulation operating in conjunction with imperialism on Third 'World peasantrics. T\) be sure 126 , the tendency is towards dissolution of the pre-capitalist modes of production but the process is off-center, affecting peasant reproduction and not production initially and only very gradually making inroads into pre- capitalist production. The articulation of modes of production theory allows for the conceptualization of the confrontation of several different modes of production at that period when their reproduction is mutually conditioning yet autonomous in the sense that their respective productive bases remain relatively intact. Third World peasantries can only be understood.in relation to the theory of the articulation of modes of production. VII. Conclusion It remains to be emphasized that this papjsr is written at the most general and abstract level of analysis, that of modes of production. As regards the processes'of primitive accumulation and imperialism discussed, neither of these processes nor the combination of the two together can be interpreted as the ultimate cause of specific developmental problems or social contradictions in a one-to-one correspondence. In other words, primitive accumulation cannot be used as the explanation or cause of any and every social phenomenon. Just as imperialism should not, although it often has been used to explain almost 'everything under the tropical sun'. An understanding of primitive accumulation and imperialism as historical processes begs for concrete and specific historical analysis in the form of rigourous scrutiny which attempts to present history and present day events as accurately as possible rather than to fit a formula. It is in this respect that an understanding of primitive accumulation and imperialism as combined historical processes offers the historical materialist theoretical framework in which our concrete analyses can be situated. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bernstein, H. 1976 'Underdevelopment and the Law of Value: A Critique of Kay1 RAPE No. 6. Bradby, B. 1975 'The Destruction of Natural Economy1 Economy and Society, Vol. 4, No. 2. 127 Chayanov, A. V. 1966 , The Theory of Peasant Economy (e~ited by E>. Thorner, B. Kerblay& R.E. F Smith) Richard D. Irwin Inc. 1-fomewood, Il~inois. Cutler, A. 1975 'The Concept QfGround-Rent and Capitalism in Agriculture' Critique of Anthropology No.4 & 5. Friedman, J. 1974 'The .. Place of Fetishism and the Problem of Materialist Interpretations '. Critique cf Anthropology No.1. Kay, G. 197~ Development and Underde"'Celopment The MacMillan Press Ltd. London•. Lenin, V. 1. 1969 (1917) Imperialism, the Hi,ghes~Stage of Capitalism International Publishers, New YorJ.• Littlejohn, G. 1977 'Peasant Economy and Society' mimeu. Luxemburg, R.,1951 (1913) The Accumulation of Ca1;>ital Monthly Review Press, New York. Marx, K. 1967 . Capital Vols I &III. International Publishers Co. Inc. Meillassoux, C. 1972 'From Reproduction to Production' Economy and Society, Vol. I No. 1. Meillassoux, C. 1974 Development or Exploitation: Is the Sahel Famine Good Business?' RAPE No. 1. Meillassoux, C. 1975 Femmes, Grenier et Capitaux Maspero, Paris. O'Laughlin, B. 1917 'Production and Reproduction: Meillassoux's Fammes Greniers et Capitaux' rrit~C!lle ()[~n!hr.~p.<::l!.'::lJL>~:'Vol. 2, No.8.