Primitive Accumulation

Primitive accumulation was only briefly mentioned by Marx in the Manifesto, It is defined as the process by which capitalists separate producers from their means of production and can be used to explain the initial endowments of capital at the beginning of the capitalist era. Marx used it to criticise the Smihian assertion that accumulation of capital occurred at some point in the past, before the division of labour. He stated that division of labour exists across history, and thus to define endowments as ‘previous accumulation’ that existed in “a mythical past that lies beyond our ability to challenge” (Perelman 2000:25). In actuality there is a very real and brutal historic experience of separating people from their means of production to create a capitalist system.

Explaining inequalities and uneven development by primitive accumulation

Initially Primitive accumulation occurred so that people were forced to join the labour force. By divorcing people from the means of social production on a subsistence scale accumulation forces them into wage labour to make the surplus capital held by the bourgeoisie productive. In effect Capital manipulates the extent to which the proletariat can provide for themselves, making them unable to maintain their previous livelihoods, and altering the social division of labour as a result. 

There is however inconsistency here in Marx’s analysis of the problem. He seemed claimed that primitive accumulation was an on-going process, yet also that separating workers from the means of production was necessary for the establishment of capitalism, but that it abruptly stopped when this society was created, Indicating perhaps that Smith was right to treat it as an event which occurred in a previous time period. One argument made by Perelman (2000) is that Marx wanted to portray a sense of unfairness in the establishment of markets and the ‘fairness’ that they bring, and that examining primitive accumumlation as a continuing phenomenon would distract from the accumulation proper that was caused by the market system. This perhaps showed that while market forces were progressive in the long run in paving the way for socialism, in the short term they were even crueller than dispossession.

Is PA on-going and a necessity for capitalism?

Glassman (2006) presented two possibilities. Firstly that we may at present be reaching the final stage of primitive accumulation, we near the fully globalised capitalist development that would allow for the proletarian struggles and revolution that Marx outlined and when such a point was reached PA would end because it would no longer be necessary.  Alternatively, and in his view more likely was that common property would continue to be exposed to capitalist appropriation.

Luxemberg (1951) went further than suggesting that PA was a continuing phenomenon, stating that it was in fact a requirement for capitalist society. The crisis tendencies of capitalism meant that the conquest of non-capitalist territories, the expropriation of raw materials or the appropriation of capital from the working classes was required as an avenue for surplus capital to be invested in. Amin (1976) claimed that while this was an option that was beneficial for the core at the expense of the periphery it was not a requirement for continued stable development because capital could find other locations to use its surplus.

Wallerstein (2000) asserted that PA could not continue forever as capitalists would not want to pay the full cost of all the social reproduction that labour required as it would raise costs to a less productive level. Glassman (2006) states that it was likely but never required as those suffering from PA would always resists and disrupt the forces of full proletaianization leaving them with some means to produce that capitalists would try to exploit. De Angelis (1999 and 2004) built on this and suggested that PA would become less prominent in society because accumulation proper, by market mechanisms was in fact far more effective in confiscating the means of social reproduction from the proletariat than PA had been. So in this respect accumulation of capital from workers was necessary for development as Luxemberg (1951) had said, but that the mechanism for this appropriation was different.

Modern Geography of PA

Perelman (2000) listed examples of PA in modern life using the example of packed urban dwellings and their lack of space for washing. Previously workers would do their own laundry, but without the space to do so they were forced to make use of laundrettes. People have to increasingly spend time in employment to afford to pay for services that they previously provided for themselves. Eventually society develops such that more women enter the labour force, the result being more money is spent on childcare and domestic services further shifting the work to non-work balance towards the former. As these processes continue Labour loses the ability to provide even basic social reproduction and as a result industries are created such as fast food to accommodate this.

Walker (2004) wrote about PA In the context of Californian agriculture. The commodification of labour is one of the most basic examples of PA, in the US case groups of imported labour were used to allow for low costs in the agricultural industry. The labour market oversupply forced wages down and the high turnover of different immigrant groups in the sector prevented them from becoming organised and collectively bargaining for higher wages. This process was reinforced by extra economic forces such as government laws forcing Japanese POWs to work in the fields or looser immigration laws for Mexicans in the agricultural sector.

Harvey (2003) wrote about the continuous nature of PA in terms of the new US imperialism. Privatisation is an example of capitalists accumulating previously common property in what Harvey refers to as accumulation by dispossession. Imposed in the global south by organisations such as the IMF it allows capitalists another way to avoid the crisis of over accumulation by finding investment opportunities for surplus capital. Spurred by declining profitability in the Post-Fordist era capitalists have been forced to find alternatives to restore profitability and this is one option they have exercised.