Primitive Accumulation - Essay Example

Primitive Accumulation Primitive accumulation has the same role in political economy as the original sin in theological arguments. After Adam had bit the apple, sin is believed to have fallen on human beings. The explanation can only be told as an anecdote from the past. In the past there existed two sorts of people: the first one - lazy rascals who spent their wealth in riotous living; another one - diligent, frugal elite and, above all, intelligent fellows. The theological legend about sin tells us how man came to be condemned to get his bread through sweating as a result of hard work.

This is not the same case when it comes to the history of economic original sin; it reveals to us that there are people to whom the whole thing is by no means essential. It happened that those in power accumulated wealth, and the subjects had at last nothing to sell other than their skins. Thus, the majority of people are poor despite their labor which is the only thing they have remained with. The few rich are constantly accumulating wealth despite the fact that they stopped working a long time ago.

This is usually used in defense of their property because in actual history it’s the enslavement, robbery, murder, and force that play greater roles. In the records of political economy, this idea has been brought about by Karl Marx. In the analysis of international trade by economists, the Robinson Crusoe figure is taken as the main starting point. He is pictured as a strong, intelligent, and diligent individual who through reasoning masters nature. In addition, he is also portrayed as a promoter of slavery, murder, robbery, and force.

This is because idyllic existed earlier thus; political economy should not be ignored. The contrast between what actually happens in the international economy and the international trade myths in the economics textbooks is a result of the contrast between the real Robinson Crusoe and the economist’s Robinson Crusoe. The model of a fisherman and a hunter who exchange their mutual profit under conditions of reciprocity, freedom, and equality are paradigmatic to non-Marxist international trade theory.

International trade should be based upon a division between equals; unfortunately, it is often based on a division between the subordinate and the superior. It’s more of a trade between the colonizer and the colonized, the hinterland and the center, the servant and the master. It’s based upon the division between lower and higher functions as in the relation of capital to labor; one party does the work while the other thinks, organizes, and plans. It has to be established and maintained by force as a result of it being unequal in structure and reward.

This force can be in the form of physical violence like war, symbolic violence of socialization, or the structural violence of poverty. Crusoe started as a slave trader and used the surplus of others to acquire wealth. This illustrates the analysis of Marx’s capitalist economy, especially the starting point: the period of primitive accumulation. Capitalist accumulation can work well when owners of money who are eager to increase their capital meet free laborers who are not controlled by personal property or pre-capitalist obligations, in the production process and marketing.

As time goes on, capitalism maintains this separation and reproduces it continuously. The prior stage is needed to pave the way for capitalism; the period of primitive accumulation. Historically the production means were concentrated on the capitalist leaving the worker with an alternative of working for him. Through the expropriation of the agricultural population, a wage labor force was created. The genesis of industrial capitalism can be traced to the looting of Africa and America in the capitalist production era.

Crusoe’s establishment can be referred to as plantation and settler economy, mostly used in non-European countries like Brazil where one needed capital and organized labor to work for him. This can relate to primitive underdevelopment. Defoe was in a better position to understand the bourgeoisie because he lived from 1659-1731. Thus, he understood its origin and its secrets.