| This question <1618|1658> overall <1651|1653> Astclair: <1576|1835>. |
| Term Paper 826: Comments about Essay about Chapter Twenty-Six: Secret of Original Accumulation |
| [1652] Astclair: In response to Commi and Ernesto [1563]: |
| Marx points out a solid theory on the original sin here, but I do not think he believes that it is an absolute theory as Commi and Ernesto write. It seems that Marx presents his theory as the dominant one, but he does not completely discredit the theory that the industrious class rallied the lazy class. As Commi and Ernesto put it, “Primitive accumulation was the original sin of capitalism. Contrary to popular belief, as Marx stated, capital accumulation is not derived on the merits of an industrious class enlightening a lazy unproductive class, but on the back of exploitation, coercion and ultimately force of one group by the other” I do not get the same absolutism out of this chapter. |
| From the text: “The legend of theological original sin tells us certainly how man came to be condemned to eat his bread in the sweat of his brow; but the history of economic original sin reveals to us that there are people to whom this is by no means essential.” The key point here is, there are people to whom this is by no means essential. This statement shows that Marx is allowing for there to be different groups of people. |
| Is it not possible that a large portion of capitalism could have been born out of innovation? For example, if there are 100 sandal makers and one of them creates a device that allows him to produce 10 times as many sandals as before he would have an advantage. But the problem is if he could operate another device he could make 20 times more. So he convinces someone, for a fair wage, to operate one device so he can operate a second one, and this can go on and on until he has 99 sandal makers working for him. This worker seems to have become a capitalist through innovation as he had no more initial capital than his competitors. |
| My point being, there are many origins to which capitalism may be drawn from. To narrow it down to just one, or one primary source, seems to be an oversimplification. |
| Hans: The step from an independent trademan or peasant to a wage laborer is a huge loss in self-determination and dignity. People did not do this voluntarily, this was a violent process of expropriation. |
| Innovation usually came after many people co-operated in the same production process. It became a factor only after capitalism was already entrenched. The early capitalists just took over the traditional production methods. |
|
|
|||||