[2007fa:651]

Term Paper 700: Essay about Chapter Twenty-Six: Secret of Original Accumulation

[651] Amy, Ashley, Ben, Jeff, Jessica, and ZACH: Term Paper for Chapter 26 from the Busybees. Amy, Jessica, Jeff, Ben, Ashley, and ZACH

Summary:

Capitalism seems to turn in a “vicious circle”. To have the accumulation of capital certain portions of capitalism must already exist, there must be surplus value and to achieve a surplus value there must be capitalistic production. Which means that to have the accumulation of capitol there must already exist “considerable masses of capital and of labor-power in the hands of producers of commodities”. As Montecarlo, Will and Danny [2007SP:1276] put it, “Each operates on the basis that there is an existing polarization of wealth and poverty”. The only way it was possible is that some portions of capitalism must have existed before capitalism did, we know that capitalism has not always existed, therefore some portions of capitalism must have existed in enough quantity that enabled the new capitalist system to begin. The necessary ingredients of capitalism that existed before capitalism was a labor supply and capital, taken from the feudal system whose serfs were without an economic system. He states, “The economic structure of capitalist society has grown out of the economic structure of feudal society. The dissolution of the latter set free the elements of the former.”

Group Reaction:

It should be mentioned at this point that there are two groups of thought in our group. The first group is called “The Berlin Wall Fell” and the other is called “The slavery of the masses”, group members found themselves sometimes in both groups and sometimes in only one group. Regardless we felt as a group that the discussion, i.e. reaction to the text deserved to be included with our summary of the chapter. After each summary the group has written the two responses. We asked the question, Do you agree with Marx or disagree and why?

The Slavery of the Masses: Marx is absolutely correct in his representation thus far of the exploitation of the masses. Capitalists just took up where feudalist lords had been. Capitalists used the wealth of the feudal system and the labor of the serfs who had no-where else to make them slaves all over again, the difference is that now the serfs don't know that they are not free, they must work. At least with the feudal system the working class knew that they were subservient and didn't have illutions that they could work hard enough to break into that group of elites.

The Berlin Wall Fell: Marxism exists in a vacuum, it is an idealistic economic system that can't be practiced because it is only one piece of a much larger puzzle. What political system would fit with this economic one? We would argue that while capitalism did come from Feudalism it wasn't predestined to become capitalism, it could have gone to socialism or communism as other parts of the world did. The people who found themselves without an economic system chose capitalism, they chose to be individualistic instead of community based, because there is less freedom of choice within Marxism. One must work for the good of all, in capitalism one may or may not work, and the effect is felt on more of an individual basis.

The Slavery of the Masses: We're going to have to agree to disagree about freedom of choice, you are obviously delusional. The people didn't choose capitalism because of more freedom, they just took the next system that came along that seemed practical. They took a system that seemed like it could work, not the one that would be the best for them in the long run.

The Berlin Wall Fell: We will give this summary point to Marx only because it is true that certain things had to be in place before capitalism could begin. As for “the slavery of the masses,” the freedom of choice of those who were first capitalists is something that we cannot determine from our limited knowledge but which is a major difference in our ways of thinking.

Summary:

As Marx further explains the origins of capitalism, he parallels The Story of Original Sin and explains that Adam bit the apple, and because of that move sin was put into the world, to every person. Marx relates this story to capitalism, as the starting point of capitalism is like the starting point of sin (his satanic portrayal of capitalism is noted). The mythical beginning of capitalism though is that originally there were two kinds of people, “one, the diligent, intelligent, and above all, frugal elite; the other lazy rascals, spending their substance, and more, in riotous living.” Marx argues that this is absolutely ridiculous, the real way that capitalism came about was not peaceful and loving but “that conquest, enslavement, robbery, murder, briefly force, play the great part”. More than its murderous start and continued forced exploitation, Marx explains the capitalist system the laborer must have the “complete separation of the laborers from all property” so that the laborer never has the chance to recognize the means of production, their own labor. Truly then what Marx means by primitive accumulation is “the historical process of divorcing the producer from the means of production.”

Group Reaction:

The Berlin Wall Fell: Relating the origin of sin to the origin of Capitalism is a bit far fetched, it's propagandist but not practical. Where was the Adam that bit the apple? Who was that first capitalist? The only thing that seems to be similar is that they both began. Capitalism absolutely began by non-peaceful means, except it seems when the Berlin Wall Fell. We would argue though that it wasn't capitalism that caused the fighting but the political system that seems most likely to be with joined with it, a democratic republic. The dissolution of the USSR seems to be one of the most recent examples of the implementation of capitalism, after the collapse of its previous economic and political system the people through non-violent means choose capitalism, or at the very least their leaders choose it and as the regular citizen did not revolt or protest it can be summarized that they did not object to the new system, so long as it provided stability. We believe the more likely biblical story that capitalism follows is that of Esau and Jacob, Esau selling his birthright for a mess of pottage. People who sell themselves short, by not having some property and by not understanding that yes they are used in the capitalist system have sold their birthright. The problem though is that while Marxism perhaps envisions a better way, right now there is no Jacob who knew better than to be a capitalist.

The Slavery of the Masses: Just so that the reader understands what just happened, our theological foes admitted that those who are in the capitalist system are being used. What about freedom of choice? That is why we agree with Marx, just as with Adam when he bit the apple and everyone had sin, so everyone that exists in the capitalist system is exploiting someone or being exploited, it can't be helped. The main point in Marx comparing the two original beginnings is not to say that they are the same story only that they seem valid because of their mythological nature and therefore we tend to romanticize them, when really the beginning of capitalism was bloody. It seems to us like splitting hairs to differentiate between what caused the contention, the new political system or the economic one, we believe it was the economic one, because it is possible to have the Marxist system and a democratic republic, or even a true democracy, such as in ancient Greece.

Summary:

In Marx's last paragraph of the chapter he argues that the secret of original accumulation, what he calls primitive accumulation, is really just the violent removal of “great masses of mean. . . forcibly torn from their means of subsistence.” Orestes and Dani, in [2007SP:1237], present the idea that “capitalism has a perpetual need for something like ‘primitive accumulation’.” That capitalism not only runs circularly but that to increase the labor supply the proletariat must continue to be moved off of their land. We believe this also makes sense with the idea of colonization, as a new mass of people is available to work in the capitalist system. Marx then makes the claim that throughout history this pattern of removal from property of the proletariat arises in different countries, although it always has different specificities and starts and concludes at different times.

The Group Discussion:

The Slavery of the Masses: Not only is capitalism circular but the violent tendencies of original accumulation, which is really just primitive expropriation, continue to occur as capitalism grows or tries to grow to new markets. The footnote in this chapter is also interesting in that gardening made a re-emergence after capitalism suffered a major defeat in the cities of Northern Italy. We couldn't agree with Marx more that this expropriation is the “basis of the whole process” of capitalism. Without a labor force, who is willing to work for others and receive low wages, not because they choose it but because they are forced into it, capitalism could not succeed.

The Berlin Wall Fell: It cannot be disputed that capitalism grew from violent beginnings, but that is not the course that it must follow. We refer to our earlier example, where was the violence when the Berlin Wall fell and capitalism began to infiltrate the former USSR. There have been revolts and some political upheaval but in a historical context it has been very minor. This would suggest that capitalism does not always have to be violent, that peaceful means also work, when people choose capitalism. We are not arguing that capitalism is the best just the best that actually works. We disagree with Marx's concluding statement in this chapter, not all countries have a violent expropriation.

Hans: Wow, that was lots of fun to read!

I hope it won't offend your religious sensibilities to say that in Marx's mind, the original sin is as much a blatant example of a non-explanation of sin, as the fable of the industrious and the lazy rascals is a non-explanation of capitalism.