Reply To Gaido 6-2013

Published on September 2022 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 5 | Comments: 0 | Views: 70
of x
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

 

COMMUNICATION: A RESPONSE TO DANIEL GAIDO, “THE AMERICAN PATH OF BOURGEOIS DEVELOPMENT REVISITED” 

Charles Post Department of Social Science Borough of Manhattan Community College-CUNY 199 Chambers Street New York, NY 10007 [email protected]; [email protected] I want to thank the editors of Science & Society for the opportunity to respond to Daniel Gaido’s (2013) critique of my The American Road to Capitalism  (2012).1 Given limitations of space, I will not be able to engage all of Gaido’s arguments, 2 but will in-

stead focus on his three most important criticisms. First, Political Marxism” (I prefer Capital-centric Marxism) is a “revisionist current within Marxism,” (229) rejecting the canonical version of historical materialism contained in Marx’s 1857 Preface to the Contribution of the Critique of Political Economy, (1989)   where the trans-historical develop-

ment of the productive forces determines the course of human history. Second, my “r evisionism” leads me to question Marx’s account of the transition from feudalism to cap i-

talism in The German Ideology  (1976a)   (1976a) and The Communist Manifesto (1970)  in which capitalism “first developed in cities and then gradually spread out   into the countryside.”

(230) Finally, my concrete-historical account of the origins of capitalism in the United

1

  The American Road to Capitalism  has just been awarded the 2013 Paul M. Sweezy Marxist Sociology Book Award by the Marxist Section of the American Sociological Association. I would like to thank Ellen Meiksins Wood and Kit Adam Wainer for comments on an earlier draft of this essay. 2

  The issue of the “bourgeois -democratic” versus capitalist revolutions, including my interpretations of the French and American Revolution and U S Civil War, will be discussed at length in my “ How Capitalist  

Were The ‘Bourgeois Revolutions’?: A Review of Neil Davidson, How Revolutionary Were The Bourgeois Revolutions?” Revolu tions?” currently under review for Historical Materialism. 

1

 

States, particularly my analysis of northern family farming and southern plantation slavery, differs from those of Marx himself, Engels, Lenin and George Novack. For Gaido, the Capital-centric Marxist rejection of the “primacy of the productive forces” means the rejection of a rigorous materialism rooted in human labor in favor of a highly voluntarist view in which “the class struggle is left alone to determine the course ical development.” (229) The opposite is, in fact, the case. Our argument is that of histor ical

the relations human beings enter into with one another   to produce and reproduce human existence—social-property relations (Brenner, 1985, 11-12)—shape  the relation between humans and the natural world as mediated through the use of tools —the labor process or forces of production. Put another way, strong rules of reproduction (laws of motion) produce distinctive patterns of development and forms of crisis are specific   to each set of social-property relations. While necessary periods of crisis intensify class struggle and open the  possibility  of   of the emergence of qualitatively new forms of social labor, it is the unpredictable  outcome of class struggle that ultimately determines whether the old social-property relations survive or what type of new social-property relations emerge. Clearly, a number of historical conditions —most importantly the structure and dynamics of the dominant social-property relations (the localized coercive renttaking typical of feudalism was a necessary precondition for the endogenous emergence of capitalism in English agriculture) —shape the variety of possible outcomes of class struggle. However, ultimately it is the outcome of the class struggle— struggle—and not the logic of the development of the productive forces —that determine which social property relations emerge.

2

 

There are a number of good reasons for Marxist to reject the canonical version of historical materialism contained in the 1857 Preface. First, there are important questions about its scientific status. Arthur Prinz (1969) carefully reviewed the strictures Prussian and other German state censors placed on the publication of critical and radical materials. Prinz concludes that the 1859 Preface, in particular its emphasis on the transhistorical development of the productive forces as the expense of the role of class struggle, may have been written to elude censorship rather than to elaborate Marx’s understanding of history. Further, Marx’s account of the evolution of capitalist industry in Capital , Volume I (1976b, Chapters 13-15), in which capitalist social-property relations “take hold” of existing labor-processes (artisanal manufacturing) and transforms them 

contradicts the notion that the forces of production determine class relations. 3 Even the most sophisticated versions of “productive forces” Marxism have been unable to identify

the selection mechanism that guarantees that the new class relations that emerge historically are more amenable to the development of the productivity of labor through the use of tools. (Chibber 2011) In sum, the notion that history is driven by the progressive development of the productive forces reads the specific dynamics  of capitalism backward   onto the entirety of human history—depriving Marx’s analysis of the capi talist

mode of production of its specificity and originality. (Wood, 1995, Chapter 4) There are even more compelling reasons to jettison Marx’s narrative of the or i-

gins of capitalism in his writings before the 1850s. As Wood (2002, Part I) and Brenner (1989) have pointed out on numerous occasions, the notion that capitalism begins in the medieval cities and expands into the countryside assumes  what must be demonstrat  3

 A similar argument is presented in Braverman, 1974. 3

 

ed —the origins of the uniquely capitalist dynamics of specialization of output, labor-

saving technical innovation and the accumulation of means of production. The “commercialization thesis,” by equating capitalism and commerce, implies that capitalism has existed in embryo for the entire history of class society. Commodity exchange between town and country was much more extensive in antiquity and in the various Asian and  African trade e empires mpires4  than in Europe a after fter the “commercial revolution” of the late 13 th  century, yet capitalism did not develop outside of England. Even more importantly, historical research over the past six decades has challenged the notion that the development of medieval towns and trade undermined feudalism and led to capitalist production in Europe. As Maurice Dobb (1976) pointed out in the original “transition debate” in this  journal, Henri Pirenne’s (1980) historical work, upon which Paul Sweezy (1976) based

his analysis, had been dismissed by most historians on factual ground by the late 1940s. More recently, Brenner (1985a and 1985b) reviewed the historical literature which continues to challenge the empirical validity of claims that the growth of towns and commerce undermined feudalism and necessarily led to capitalism in early modern Europe. Rather than commerce “dissolving” feudal relations, it led to the restructuring and reinforcement of feudal relations in Eastern Europe during the ‘second serfdom’ in 14th and 15th centuries. Today, most Marxian historians recognize that trade and the urban-rural division of labor were a feature of feudalism. (Merrington 1976)  At the heart of Gaido’s critique of The American Road to Capitalism is my devia-

tion from the insights of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Novack on US capitalism. Gaido is extremely critical of what he, correctly, identifies as my central thesis—that the auction of

4

 See Brook 2010; Coe 2003; Ehret 2002, Thapar 2002. 4

 

public lands and resulting social monopoly of land in the five decades after the Constitutional Settlement of 1787 subordinated northern rural households to ‘market coercion’ or the law of value, compelling them to specialize output, introduce labor-saving tools and methods and accumulate land and tools in order to obtain, maintain and expand land holdings. In the course of his essay, Gaido makes two, contradictory , claims. First, he claims that all self-organized, rural household production throughout history   has been subject to ‘market coercion’/the law of value. In other words, northern farmers were always subject to competitive pressures that forced them to specialize, innovate and ac-

cumulate, becoming a home market for industrial capital. Second, he argues that the continuous forcible expropriation of Native American populations allowed farmer-settlers to obtain cheap land on the frontier, engage in subsistence production, and avoid wage labor. For Gaido, it appears that family farming in the north was both a spur and obstacle to capitalist development in the 19 th century US. Gaido begins by challenging the validity of the concept of independent household production—a form of social labor in which legally free rural households are not compelled to specialize, innovate and accumulate in order to obtain, maintain or expand land-holdings, claiming such a concept is “not to be found in Marx’s writings.”  (230). Instead, Gaido, following Engels’ supplement to Capital, Volume III (1981), insists that “commodity production is always ‘subordinated to the law of value.’” (237) It is true that

Marx did not use the term, which was introduced by the Marxian rural sociologist Harriet Friedmann (1980). However, Marx (1976b, Chapter 33) recognized situations —in settler-colonies like Australia—in which legally free people can appropriate landed property without successful commodity production, marketing only physical surpluses above

5

 

what is necessary to maintain themselves and their neighbors. Rosa Luxemburg’s co ncept of a ‘peasant economy’ in her  Accumulation of Capital (1968, Chapter XXIX) is

nearly identical to Friedman’s concept of independent household production. More i mportantly, there is voluminous historical research on the persistence of independent household production until the last quarter of the 20 th  century in most of the global South, much of which has been published in Journal of Peasant Studies and Journal of  Agrarian Change  over the past forty years. In sum, there are sound theoretical and his-

torical reasons for identifying forms of rural household production in which legally free producers are not  subject  subject to the law of value. Gaido appears to contradict his claim that northern rural household production was always subject to market coercion, when he argues that “the development of pea sant holdings through land confiscation or colonization delayed the appearance of wage labor and therefore the development of capitalism ‘in depth.’” (233) Following George

Novack (1935 and 1957), Gaido implies that land on the northern frontier was sufficiently cheap to allow urban workers to escape wage-labor and engage in “safety-first agriculture,” producing for their own and neighbors’ subsistence and marketing only phys ical surpluses. The “clearing of the estates”— the expropriation of the least productive

and competitive rural producers—did not take place “until the late 19 th  and early 20th  centuries.” (249) This account is not only historically inaccurate, but contradicts Gaido’s earlier claim that independent household producers are “always” subordinated to the

law of value—to the compulsion to economize labor time through specialization, innovation and accumulation. accumulation. Put simply, either northern farmers were always subject to competitive pressures—and the ultimate penalty of losing their land if they did not produce

6

 

at or below socially average necessary labor-time—or there was a transition from independent household to petty-commodity production in the US. There is ample historical evidence that the shift from independent household to petty-commodity production took place in the first four decades of the nineteenth century. After a renewed debate on the social organization of northern agriculture before the  American Revolution, which I reviewed in detail in Chapters 2 and 4 of my book, there is a clear consensus that colonial northern farmers were able to obtain land outside the land market —through squatting on unoccupied lands as individuals or groups, and

eventually obtaining legal title to the land at below market prices. As a result, colonial farmers were free to devote the majority of their labor-time to the production of usevalues— values —their own and their neighbors’ subsistence. While no individual household was “self -sufficient,” “neighborly exchange” of labor and produce guaranteed community in-

dependence. Physical surpluses were marketed, and cash was used to purchase the handful of goods local communities could not produce themselves. However, the reproduction of the independent households’ did not depend upon successful market comp e-

tition-- producing at or below socially average necessary labor time —and did not produce a dynamic of specialization, innovation and accumulation. Instead, there was an actual regression of the productive forces in northern colonial agriculture compared with contemporary English agriculture, as northern farmers abandoned the “up -and-down husbandry” that market English farming since the 16 th century. (Lemon, 1976, 163-178)

I also provide detailed documentation of how the class conflicts between northern farmers and merchants and land speculators in the two decades after the Constitutional Settlement of 1787 fundamentally altered the conditions under which rural households 7

 

obtained, maintained and expanded landholdings. (Post 2012, Chapters 2 and 5) The defeat of the cycle of rural revolts in the 1780s and 1790s not only scuttled demands for “inflationary measures  and debt relief,” (241) but effectively ended squatting in the r e e--

gions east of the Appalachians, opening the way to the massive commodification of landed property through federal and state public land sales that began in the 1790s. 5  While pockets of independent household production survived through the 1830s in the trans-Allegheny northwest, by the 1840s almost all actual settlers had to purchase land from private speculators and land companies at prices well above the federal minimum prices. In Iowa, on the frontier of northern settlement in the 1850s, the portion of farmers who purchased land from speculators rose from 78.1% in 1850 to 85.7% in 1860. (Swierenga, 1968, 48-50, 100-123) The rising burden of mortgages and taxes com pelled  actual   actual settlers in the 1840s and 1850s to “sell to survive”— specialize output, in-

troduce labor-saving tools and accumulate land and tools. (Post, 2012, Chapter 2; Levy, 2012)6 

5

 Gaido claims that the defeat of the northern farmers in the 1780s and 1790s was temporary, claiming that Jefferson’s election in 1800 represented the “break -up of the bourgeois-planter bloc”  (Federalism) and the beginning of the dominance of various “farmer -planter ‘agrarian’ fronts”  (Democratic-Republicans and Democrats). First, the alliance between the northern merchants and bankers and the largest southern planters continued in the form of the National-Republican and Whig parties of the 1820s through mid1850s. (Sellers 1969). Second, the Democratic-Republics and Democrats, who were the dominant party through most of the antebellum period, never abolished auctions as the main way of transferring public lands to private individuals and corporations. (Mayer and Faye, 1977; Kennedy 2003). 6

 According to Gaido, “From this analysis it follows that the existence of a class of latifundia -owners who monopolized the land before the colonization process, the presence of a bloated state bureaucracy and the absence of credit markets would have created the ideal conditions for the development of pettycommodity production and therefore of capitalism.” (239) Clearly, if the l atifundia-owners extracted rents through extra-economic coercion, and state expenditures funded  politically constituted property (offices) through the collection of taxes as a major form of surplus extraction from the peasantry —as was the case in much of 19th  century Latin America—then non-capitalist   agriculture would have been reproduced. However, in the US land speculation did not produce a class of landlords, nor did taxation fund politically constituted property. Instead, land speculation and rising capitalist state taxes in the US provided a “lever against peasant economy” (Luxemburg, 1968, Chapter XXIX), compelling household producers to b ecome petty commodity producers. 8

 

Gaido challenges my interpretation of the impact of the US public land system, claiming that falling minimum prices and acreage offered for sale, the Pre-Emption Act of 1841 and, most importantly, the Homestead Act of 1862 made vast expanses of the public domain available to settlers at low or no cost. Not only did these measures produced wide-spread landownership in the nineteenth century US that Marx (1972, 49) discussed in a letter to the US socialist Sorge,7 but as Lenin argued (1954, 44n.), produced higher levels of agricultural mechanization than other contemporary societies. Unfortunately, none of these claims are empirically verifiable. First, while minimum prices and acreage did decline in the first half of the 19 th century, there were no maximum  prices charged and maximum acreage sold at public auction. By the 1850s, unimproved

land sold for an average of $4.00 per acre —four times the minimum price of $1.25 per acre. Land near railroad lines sold for between $8.00 and $12.00 per acre —6.5 to nearly 10 times  the federal minimum price. (Atack, Bateman and Parker, 2000, 311-312)

Second, the Pre-Emption Act of 1841, which allowed actual settlers to purchase land they occupied at federal minimum prices, was  prospective (only applied to those who occupied public lands after 1841) and was most often used by land speculators to purchase lands that were then resold to actual settlers. (Gates, 1968, 238-245). Finally, the Homestead Act, while ostensibly allowing “any US citizen” to “lay claim to 160 acres of surveyed government land,” actually distributed a very small portion of the public d o-

main after the Civil War. As both Paul Gates (1936) and Fred Shannon (1936) pointed out, the best located lands —along the railroad lines —continued to be auctioned for 7

 Gaido cites data that as late as 1870, 43% of all white men over 21 (and 39% of the total population) owned real estate. (241-242) This data does not necessarily support Gaido’s claims. First, not all owners —many owned urban real estate. Second, and more importantly, of real estate  under were necessarily farmers the which farmers obtaine conditions d land compelled them to “sell to survive.”   9

 

market prices either by the private railroads or the federal government. Lenin’s ( 1970,

119) claim that the Homestead Act “implemented in a capitalist way the ‘Narodnik’ idea of distributing unoccupied lands to all applicants” was  factually incorrect.

Gaido’s and Novack’s claim that the expansion of household production on the

northern frontier provided an alternative to wage-labor is also without empirical basis. Gaido and Novack revive the “Turner thesis” (Turner 1893), which claimed that cheap or free land on the frontier provided a “safety -value” for labor—an alternative to selling

their labor-power to capital—in the US until the end of the 19th century. Since the 1930s, historical research (Shannon, 1936; Shannon, 1945; Danhof 1941) has effectively demolished the “Turner thesis.” The cost of establishing a  viable farm—including the rising cost of land and mortgages, the expenses associated with clearing and fencing land, etc.—placed farm ownership beyond the means of even the best paid, steadily employed urban worker in the 1840s and 1850s. Put simply, after c. 1840, all potential farmers in the northern US had to “sell to survive”— specialize output, introduce labor-

saving tools and methods and accumulate capital —in order to obtain, maintain and expand land-holdings. Finally, Gaido challenges my analysis of plantation slavery. We agree that the master-slave relation, even though it was part and parcel of the capitalist world market of the nineteenth century, was not capitalist. However, Gaido rejects my critique of Eugene Genovese’s (1967) claim that the stagnation of labor productivity under slavery

was  the result of the unfree laborers’ lack of “motivation” to work consistently and d evelop skills. Instead, the slave, as “means of production of production in human form,” could not be easily expelled from production, blocking the introduction of labor-savings 10

 

tools and methods. Gaido first argues that “it is hard to see how a population artificially kept in a state of illiteracy, deprived of civil and political rights and driven by the lash could be as productive as Northern farmers and workers.” (244) He also asserts that my analysis of slavery runs “directly counter to Marx’s statements without mentioning it.”  

(244) The fact that slave were as productive as legally free wage laborers in the North in industries with similar technology—iron smelting, cotton textile manufacture and mining—directly contradicts Gaido’s claim that unfreedom made slaves’ less motivated and skilled workers. (Starobin, 1970, Chapter 1, and 153 –63; Lewis, 1979.) Marx said many contradictory   things about the dynamics of slavery —even in Capital.  Gaido cites one

quote from Capital, Volume I (1976b, 303-304) that supports his claim that slaves were unmotivated workers incapable of sustained labor or developing skills. One can also find Marx (1976b, 1029-1034) arguing that guaranteed subsistence —the masters’ need to maintain the slaves value as “fixed capital”—made the slaves unmotivated workers;

that slavery was a capitalist form of social labor (1976b, 345 ); and that “the purchase o f labor-power plays the role of fixed capital” under slavery (1978, 554). Ultimately, the disagreement between Gaido and myself is as much methodologCapital-centric centric Marxists” like myself , the revival of ical as theoretical and historical. For “Capital-

historical materialism as a scientific approach to the study of the world  has best been advanced by the critical Marxist engagement with historical data in the forms of archivalprimary sources and the best of the (predominantly non-Marxist) secondary historical literature. Historians and social scientists in various disciplines have used Marxist categories—social relations of production, labor-process, laws of motion, class struggle, the state—  to produce historically grounded analyses of concrete societies. In a period

11

 

when subjectivist and idealist frameworks such as post-modernism have had a profound influence on the intellectual left, this critical Marxist historical research has reaffirmed that the purpose of theory is to explain the material world . This engagement of critical Marxism with historical data has not only deepened our understanding of actual history, but has helped renew  historical  historical materialist as a theory . Unfortunately, for Gaido, historical materialism is best defended as dogma, where arguments made by “authorities” are incontrovertibly true. It matters little that Marx’s own theory evolved over time, or that

classical Marxists often fashioned analyses based on impressionistic or incomplete historical materials. What matters is what the Marxist ‘masters’ argued, not whether the ir arguments are theoretically coherent or factually valid. I hope that the readers of Science & Society  will   will read The American Road to Capitalism and make their own, inde-

pendent judgment on which method will revive Marxism in the 21 st century.

12

 

REFERENCES 

 Atack, Jeremy, F. Bateman and W. N. Parker. 2000. “Northern Agriculture and the Westward Movement.” In eds., S.L. Engerman and R.E. Gallman, The Cambridge Economic History of the United States , Volume II: The Long Nineteenth Century. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Braverman, Harry. 1974. Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century . New York: Monthly Review Press. Brenner, Robert. 1985. "Agrarian Class Structure and Economic Development," in T.H.  Aston and C.H.E. Philpin (eds.) The Brenner Debate: Agrarian Class Structure and Economic Development in Pre-Industrial Europe.  Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.  _____. 1985b. ‘Agrarian Roots of European Capitalism.’ In The Brenner Debate.  _____.1989. ‘Bourgeois Revolution and Transition to Capitalism.’ In The First Modern Society, eds. A. L. Beier, D. Cannadine and J.M. Rosenheim. New York: Cambridge University Press. Brook¸ Timothy. 2010. The Troubled Empire: China in the Huan and Mong Dynasties. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Chibber, Vivek. 2011. “What Is Living and What Is Dead in the Marxist Theory of Hist ory.” Historical Materialism, 19,2: 60-91. Coe, Michael D. 2003.  Angkor and the Khmer Civilization. London: Thames and Hudson. Danhof, Clarence H. 1941, ‘Farm–Making Costs and the ‘Safety–Valve’: 1850– 1860.’ Journal of Political Economy. 49,3: 317 –359. Dobb, Maurice. 1976 (1950). “A Reply.” In The Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism,

ed. R. Hilton. London: New Left Books. Ehret, Christopher. 2002. The Civilizations of Africa: A History to 1800 . Richmond, VA: University of Virginia Press. Friedmann, Harriet . 1980. "Household Production and the National Economy: Concepts for the Analysis of Agrarian Formations." Journal of Peasant Studies , 7,2 (January): 157-184. Engels, Frederich. 1981. “Law of Value and Rate of Profit.” In Marx, Capital , III. Gaido, Daniel. 2013. “The American Path of Bourgeois Development.” Science & Society, 77,2 (April), 227-252.

Gates, Paul W. 1936. “The Homestead Law in an Incongruous Land S ystem.”  The  American Historical Review , 41(4), 652-681.  _____. 1968. History of Public Land Law Development . Washington DC: Public Land Law Review Commission.

13

 

Genovese, Eugene D. 1967. The Political Economy of Slavery: Studies in the Economy and Society of the Slave South.  New York: Vintage Books. Kennedy, Roger G. 2003. Mr. Jefferson’s Lost Cause: Land, Farmers, Slavery and the Louisiana Purchase. New York: Oxford University Press. Lemon, James T. 1976. The Best Poor Man’s Country: A Geographical Study of Early Southeastern Pennsylvania. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Lenin, V.I. 1954 (1907). The Agrarian Program of the Social-Democracy in the First Russian Revolution, 1904-1907. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House.  _____. 1970 (1917). “New Data on the Laws Governing the Development of Capitalism in Agriculture, Part I: Capitalism and A griculture in the United States of America,” In Lenin on the United States: Selections From His Writings. New York: Interna-

tional Publishers. Levy, Jonathan. 2012. “The Mortgage Worked the Hardest: The Fate of Landed Ind ependence in Nineteenth-Century Amer ica.” ica.” In eds., M. Zakim and G.J. Kornblith, Capitalism Takes Command: The Social Transformation of Nineteenth-Century  America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lewis, Ronald L. 1979. Coal, Iron, and Slaves: Industrial Slavery in Maryland and Virginia, 1715   –1865.  –1865. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Marx, Karl. 1970 (1848). The Communist Manifesto . New York: Pathfinder Press.  _____. 1972. On America and the Civil War. New York: McGraw Hill.  _____. 1976a (1845-1846). The German Ideology. Moscow: Progress Press.  _____. 1976b. Capital, Volume I. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.  _____. 1978. Capital, Volume II. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.  _____. 1981. Capital, Volume III. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.  _____. 1989 (1857).  A Contribution Con tribution to the th e Critique of Political Economy . New York: International Publishers. Mayer, Margit and Margaret A. Fay. 1977. “The Formation of the American Nation State.” Kapitalistate. 6:39-90. Merrington, John. 1976 (1975). “Town   and Country in the Transition to Capitalism.” In The Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism.  Novack, George. 1935. “US Capitalism: National or International.” The New International , 2,6 (October), 191-197.  ______. 1957. “The Rise and Fall of Progressivism.” International Socialist Review , 18,3

(Summer), 83-88. Pirenne, Henri. 1980 (1922). Medieval Cities: Their Origins and the Revival of Trade . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

14

 

Post, Charles. 2012. The American Road to Capitalism: Studies in Class-Structure, Economic Development and Political Conflict, 1620-1877. Chicago: Haymarket Books. Prinz, Arthur. 1969. “Background and Ulterior Mot ive of Marx’s ‘Preface’ of 1859.” Journal of the History of Ideas , 30, 3 (July-September), 437-450.

Shannon, Fred A. 1936. “The Homestead Act and the Labor S urplus.”  The American Historical Review , 41(4), 637-651.  _______. 1945. “ A  A Post-Mortem on the Labor-Safety-Valve theory.”  Agricultural Agricultural History , 19,1:31-37. Starobin, Robert S. 1970. Industrial Slavery in the Old South. New York: Oxford University Press. Sweezy, Paul. 1976 (1950). “A Critique.” In The Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism.

Swierenga, Robert P. 1968. Pioneers and Profits: Land Speculation on the Iowa Frontier. Ames, IA: University of Iowa Press. Thapar, Romila. 2002.The Penguin History of Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300 . New York: Penguin Books. Turner, Fredrick Jackson. 189., ‘The Significance of the Frontier in American History.’ [http://polaris.anaheimaltschools.org/ourpages/auto/2009/2/11/45478901/Fredric k%20Jackson%20Turner%20essay.pdf .] Wood, Ellen Meiksins. 1995. Democracy Against Capitalism: Renewing Historical Materialism. New York: Cambridge University Press.  _____. 2002. The Origin of Capitalism: A Longer View . London: Verso Books.

15

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close