Selected pages Title Page. Thanks for telling us about the problem. To try and get some jalrus of where Indian capital banajk at, a colleague of mine who now runs a federation of independent unions here in India and I jointly conducted close to interviews with people across the financial and industrial sectors fund managers, auditors, company directors, analysts, etc. By the time we come to Volume Three we realise that capitalism cannot function without credit, credit is its whole basis, as Marx tells us. Furthermore, Banaji seems to reject teleologies as such.
|Published (Last):||20 May 2013|
|PDF File Size:||20.27 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||19.38 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Parts of this book seem clearly targeted at the Maoist argument that "survivals of pre-capitalist relations of production" mean that the prime revolutionary class is the peasantry against the assertions of earlier Stalinists and other forms of communism about the working class. This argument is the thread that keeps these otherwise unrelated scholarly essays together. Interestingly, while there is no "pure" agrarian capitalism according to Banaji, he does prove that there was significant wage labor in both pre-modern and third world agriculture earlier than most Marxists conceive.
This is significant as it draws out the horizon of the origins out beyond England. That said, this does complicate the development of capitalism quite clearly. Furthermore, Banaji seems to reject teleologies as such. To my mind, this is reading Hegelian and German idealist assumptions about what a teleology is back into the entirety of history.
This is not to dismiss Banaji. This is an important book, and while not necessarily easy for lay-readers in either medieval economic history or inter-Marxist debates, it is a vital read. It also calls for Marxists to look at non-European societies and do more significant comparative work before making big claims about history. The strongest chapters are the ones dealing with conceptions of "free" and "unfree" labor in the modern political economy as well as ones critiquing a lack of historiography in Marxist circles around antiquity and around non-European developmental modes.
Theory As History: Essays on Modes of Production and Exploitation
Should one consider this various interests as different interventions within heterogeneous fields of research or is there a continuity and systematicity to be found in your work? The continuity is simply that of Marxist theory itself. Historical materialism as Marx understood this was an integrated conception or field of research, not one divided into disciplines. So I see my work as a unified intervention at very different levels, in rather different fields. To try and get some sense of where Indian capital was at, a colleague of mine who now runs a federation of independent unions here in India and I jointly conducted close to interviews with people across the financial and industrial sectors fund managers, auditors, company directors, analysts, etc.