Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:50, 22 January 2006

Primitive accumulation of capital is a concept introduced by Karl Marx in part 8 of the first volume of Das Kapital (in German: ursprungliche Akkumulation, literally "original accumulation" or "primeval accumulation"). Its purpose is to help explain how the capitalist mode of production can come into being.

Capital is money that makes more money, value in search of surplus-value. It originates in the activity of buying goods in order to resell them at a profit, and first emerges in commercial trade connecting different economic communities, whose production is not yet capitalist. The existence of usury capital, bank capital, rentier capital and merchant capital historically precedes capitalist industry.

Reason for the concept

Marx showed in Das Kapital how "money is changed into capital" and "how capital generates surplus-value" forming more capital. But in doing so, he had already assumed that there exists a mass of capital available for investment, and there already exists exploitable labour-power.

He had shown how capitalist production could itself reproduce the conditions of its own existence on an ever broader scale. But, as he says, "the whole movement seems to turn into a vicious circle" and to explain how the capitalist mode of production comes into being in the first place, he had to theorize an original accumulation, or what Adam Smith had called "previous accumulation" – an accumulation which did not result from capitalist production, but formed an external starting point to it.

The myths of Political Economy

In so doing, Marx had to dispel some religious myths and fairytales about the origins of capitalism. Marx wrote:

"This primitive accumulation plays in Political Economy about the same part as original sin in theology. Adam bit the apple, and thereupon sin fell on the human race. Its origin is supposed to be explained when it is told as an anecdote of the past. In times long gone-by there were two sorts of people; one, the diligent, intelligent, and, above all, frugal elite; the other, lazy rascals, spending their substance, and more, in riotous living. (...) Thus it came to pass that the former sort accumulated wealth, and the latter sort had at last nothing to sell except their own skins. And from this original sin dates the poverty of the great majority that, despite all its labour, has up to now nothing to sell but itself, and the wealth of the few that increases constantly although they have long ceased to work."

Such an explanation might satisfy some, but not a serious economic historian. What has to be explained is how the capitalist relations of production are historically established. In other words, how it comes about that means of production get to be privately owned and traded in, and how the capitalists can find workers on the labour market ready and willing to work for them, because they have no other means of livelihood.

The basic meaning of primitive accumulation

Marx believed that getting to this point was partly just a gradual process of market formation and the growth of trade over the centuries.

"Although we come across the first beginnings of capitalist production as early as the 14th or 15th century, sporadically, in certain towns of the Mediterranean, the capitalistic era dates from the 16th century" (ibid.)

But market expansion is not simply a process of the peaceful, gradual increase of commercial trade. It is also a story of violence and conquest, piracy and plunder, theft and robbery, which destroys natural economy:

"The so-called primitive accumulation, therefore, is nothing else than the historical process of divorcing the producer from the means of production. It appears as primitive, because it forms the pre-historic stage of capital and of the mode of production corresponding with it." (emphasis added)

Marx's case history

In a case history of England, Marx looks at how the serfs became free peasant proprietors and small farmers, who were, over time, forcibly expropriated and driven off the land, forming a propertyless proletariat.

He also shows how more and more legislation is enacted by the state to control and regiment this new class of wage workers. Meantime, the remaining farmers became capitalist farmers operating more and more on a commercial basis; and gradually, legal monopolies preventing trade and investment by entrepreneurs are broken up.

This is just one case study however - the way things happened on the continent were different from how they happened in England (for example, the peasants put up more resistance).

But primitive accumulation involves more.

The link between primitive accumulation and colonialism

At the same time as local obstacles to investment in manufactories are being overcome, and a unified national market is developing with a nationalist ideology, Marx sees a strong impulse to business development coming from world trade:

"The discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation, enslavement and entombment in mines of the aboriginal population, the beginning of the conquest and looting of the East Indies, the turning of Africa into a warren for the commercial hunting of black-skins, signalled the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production. These idyllic proceedings are the chief moments of primitive accumulation. On their heels treads the commercial war of the European nations, with the globe for a theatre. It begins with the revolt of the Netherlands from Spain, assumes giant dimensions in England's Anti-Jacobin War, and is still going on in the opium wars against China, &c. The different moments of primitive accumulation distribute themselves now, more or less in chronological order, particularly over Spain, Portugal, Holland, France, and England. In England at the end of the 17th century, they arrive at a systematical combination, embracing the colonies, the national debt, the modern mode of taxation, and the protectionist system. These methods depend in part on brute force, e.g., the colonial system. But, they all employ the power of the State, the concentrated and organised force of society, to hasten, hot-house fashion, the process of transformation of the feudal mode of production into the capitalist mode, and to shorten the transition. Force is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one. It is itself an economic power.(chapter 31, emphasis added).

In other words, imperialism is according to Marx part of the very birth of capitalism.

Primitive accumulation and privatisation

Marx says that primitive accumulation means the expropriation of the direct producers, and more specifically "the dissolution of private property based on the labor of its owner... Self-earned private property, that is based, so to say, on the fusing together of the isolated, independent laboring-individual with the conditions of his labor, is supplanted by capitalistic private property, which rests on exploitation of the nominally free labor of others, i.e., on wage-labor." (chapter 32, emphasis added).

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch32.htm

The whole purpose of primitive accumulation is to privatise the means of production, so that the owners can make money from the surplus labour of those who, lacking other means, must work for them.

The essence of capitalist production relations revealed

In the last chapter of Das Kapital, Vol. 1, Marx illustrates the social conditions necessary for capitalism with a comment about Edward Gibbon Wakefield's theory of colonisation:

"...Wakefield discovered that in the Colonies, property in money, means of subsistence, machines, and other means of production, does not as yet stamp a man as a capitalist if there be wanting the correlative — the wage-worker, the other man who is compelled to sell himself of his own free-will. He discovered that capital is not a thing, but a social relation between persons, established by the instrumentality of things. Mr. Peel, he moans, took with him from England to Swan River, West Australia, means of subsistence and of production to the amount of £50,000. Mr. Peel had the foresight to bring with him, besides, 3,000 persons of the working-class, men, women, and children. Once arrived at his destination, “Mr. Peel was left without a servant to make his bed or fetch him water from the river.” Unhappy Mr. Peel, who provided for everything except the export of English modes of production to Swan River!"

Capital, vol. I, ch. 33, at www.marxists.org.

The past and the future

"Orthodox" Marxists see primitive accumulation as something that happened in the late Middle Ages and finished long ago, when capitalist industry started. They see primitive accumulation as a process happening in the transition from the feudal "stage" to the capitalist "stage".

But most intelligent historians realise this has very little to do with Marx or historical reality, especially since feudal-type economies existed in various parts of the world well into the 20th century.

Marx's story of primitive accumulation is best seen as a special case of the general principle of capitalist market expansion. In part, trade grows incrementally, but usually the establishment of capitalist relations of production involves force and violence; transforming property relations means that assets previously owned by some people are no longer owned by them, but by other people, and making people part with their assets in this way involves coercion.

In his preface to Das Kapital Vol. 1, Marx writes "The country that is more developed industially only shows, to the less developed, the image of its own future". The less developed countries also face a process of primitive accumulation, it is an ongoing process of expropriation, proletarianisation and urbanisation.

Marx comments that "if, however, the German reader shrugs his shoulders at the condition of the English industrial and agricultural labourers, or in optimist fashion comforts himself with the thought that in Germany things are not nearly so bad, I must plainly tell him, "De te fabula narratur ! (the tale is told of you!)".

Marx was referring here to the expansion of the capitalist mode of production (not the expansion of world trade), through expropriation processes. He continues, "Intrinsically, it is not a question of the higher or lower degree of development of the social antagonism that results from the natural laws of capitalist production. It is a question of these laws themselves, of these tendencies working with iron necessity towards inevitable results."

The way this whole process occurs, i.e. the process by which foreign economic communities are subordinated to the laws of motion of capital, is precisely the so-called "primitive accumulation": the plunder or privatisation of the commons and the proletarianisation of the working population.

Ernest Mandel's theory of primitive accumulation

Ernest Mandel offers a Marxian theory which differs from orthodox Marxist stage theory. In his theory, primitive accumulation is part of the uneven and combined development of capitalism on a world scale.

Because business start-ups, forcible expansion of capitalist markets, and expropriation of peasants are going on all the time, primitive accumulation is also a process which happens all the time. The orthodox Marxists overlooked this social trend, possibly because they were fixated on Marx's story about English peasants being thrown off the land, rather than studying the facts of world history.

Mandel surveys the history of capitalist development from the early middle ages, and distinguishes between primitive accumulation of money capital and primitive accumulation of industrial capital. The one does not necessarily lead to the other. He calculates that the transfer of value to Europe from the slave trade and colonial robbery between 1500 and 1750 amounted to a sum of capital larger than the total capital invested in European industries in the year 1800.

The predicament of the "developing countries", Mandel says, expresses a double tragedy. Not only did they pay the price for the international concentration of capital; they also had to overcome industrial backwardness in a world economy already dominated by the industrial goods of the advanced countries.

So, while the world market boosted industrialisation between the 1500s and 1800s, by about 1900 the same world market became an obstacle or brake to the industrialisation of the third world, which mostly could not compete with Europe, North America and Japan. Some "intermediate" countries (e.g. settler colonies) did industrialise, but typically in a one-sided way; many of the industrial goods were produced for export.

The integration of developing countries into the world market occurred mainly on the initiative of the Western powers, in a way consistent with their interests. This created a hierarchy of nations in the international division of labour.

Because local demand was lacking in the third world, and because investors were unwilling to create colonial competition for the home country, investments focused mainly on agriculture and extraction of minerals for export.

At best, the outcome of all this was half-industrialisation, and an economy which does not adequately serve the needs of the local population. There was plenty capital and unemployed labour, but little possibility for local industrial development benefiting the local population.

Mandel concluded that because the third world bourgeoisie mostly doesn't really care about developing the country, workers and peasants must take state power and carry out the necessary economic changes.

Schumpeter's critique of Marx's theory

The economist Joseph Schumpeter believed that the truth was that Karl Marx could not explain the origin of capital at all. He wrote:

" presented itself first to those authors, chiefly to Marx and the Marxists, who held an exploitation theory of interest and had, therefore, to face the question of how exploiters secured control of an initial stock of 'capital' (however defined) with which to exploit - a question which that theory per se is incapable of answering, and which may obviously be answered in a manner highly uncongenial to the idea of exploitation" (Joseph Schumpeter, Business Cycles, Vol. 1, New York; McGraw-Hill, 1939, p. 229).

In Schumpeter's view, imperialism wasn't an inherent feature of capitalism - after all, imperialism pre-existed capitalism - and world trade could in principle just expand peacefully. If imperialism occurred, it has nothing to do with the instrinsic nature of capitalism itself, or with capitalist market expansion:

"Imperialism is the object-less disposition of a state to expansion by force without assigned limits... Modern Imperialism is one of the heirlooms of the absolute monarchical state. The "inner logic" of capitalism would have never evolved it. Its sources come from the policy of the princes and the customs of a pre-capitalist milieu. But even export monopoly is not imperialism and it would never have developed to imperialism in the hands of the pacific bourgeoisie. This happened only because the war machine, its social atmosphere, and the martial will were inherited and because a martially-oriented class (i.e., the nobility) maintained itself in a ruling position with which of all the varied interests of the bourgeoisie the martial ones could ally themselves. This alliance keeps alive fighting instincts and ideas of domination. It led to social relations which perhaps ultimately are to be explained by relations of production but not by the productive relations of capitalism alone." (Joseph A. Schumpeter: The Sociology of Imperialism, 1918).

Modern primitive accumulation and the Washington Consensus

From a Marxian perspective, the main world institutions promoting primitive accumulation in the modern world (beyond national governments) these days include the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO. The basic problem as these institutions see it, is one of integrating all countries into one big world market with standardised rules. Obstacles to a stable and growing business environment must be cleared away.

For this purpose, everything has to become (capitalist) private property (well, except a "care-taker" state providing basic services perhaps). Non-capitalist modes of production must be eradicated, public assets must be privatised, and non-market access to resources abolished. Where markets do not exist, they must be created.

The underlying idea is that the world economy is already a unified, globalised system, and that national sovereignty does not mean much anymore anyway. The way American strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski put it in a keynote address at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies on 3 October 2003 was: "And what is sovereignty in this day and age? Sovereignty is a concept, but it's a relative concept. If there was declared a provisional government of Iraq, we could give it symbolic sovereignty and it would help it to gain legitimacy, thereby reducing the need for an assertive occupation."

The economic basis of modern imperialism, existing regardless of specific political or military policies, is argued to be:

• expansion of the capitalist market internationally, as the basis for the enlarged reproduction of capital. A central role in this process is played by the supply and control of credit and investment capital; direct colonialism is unnecessary, only targeted military or political intervention to remove obstacles.

• international competition between rival groups of capitalists and capitalist states - that is, the original bourgeois quest for a unified national market, with its battles between free traders and protectionists and its nationalist ideologies, repeats itself on an international scale.

The superstructure of this neo-imperialism is formed by a set of cultural values. As Condoleezza Rice explains, "I wouldn't accept the comparison to the Roman Empire, of course, because the United States has no imperial ambitions." She emphasises that there was an "alliance of states that were on the right side of history after World War II, the countries that dedicated themselves to values -- human values of democracy and freedom of speech and freedom of religion and prosperity for people based on human dignity.... the United States is the most powerful state within that alliance we see this, really, as an opportunity for states that share values to have an opportunity to bring those values to other parts of the world where they are not yet -- have not yet taken hold." http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030731-7.html

The corrolary of "bringing these values to other parts of the world" is the attack and critique of other values, insofar as they are incompatible with this project. The underlying belief is, that only a capitalist market economy can be the social basis of a progressive, liberal, democratic civilisation.

The original "Washington Consensus" defined by John Williamson ("What Should the World Bank Think About the Washington Consensus?" August 2000) accordingly had the following programmatic themes:

• Government expenditure restraint
• state services should make bigger profits
• improving basic health care, primary education, and infrastructure
• Lower marginal tax rates, and broaden the tax base
• Interest rate liberalization
• A competitive exchange rate
• Maximising free trade
• Removing restrictions on foreign direct investment
• Privatizing public goods, institutions and enterprises where possible
• Reducing barriers to the entry and exit of capital, goods and services + money and people
• Secure private property rights.

To which can be added some additional specific imperatives (Rodrik, Dani, "The Global Governance of Trade as if Development Really Mattered," New York: UNDP, 2001):

• Corporate governance (corporate management must deliver good profits to shareholders dispersed over the globe).
• Anti-corruption measures (both for government and for corporate organisations).
• Flexible, deregulated labor markets forcing labour to where it's needed.
• WTO agreements reflecting the imperatives mentioned above
• International standard financial codes and accounting standards
• "prudent" credit and bank policies.
• Non-intermediate exchange rate regimes (preferably floating exchange-rates).
• Central banks operating with autonomy from government control, and reducing inflation as a priority.
• Social safety nets, instead of welfare states redistributing wealth.
• Targeted poverty reduction aiming to integrate the poor into markets.

That remains the basic agenda for world capitalism these days, and according to Marxian scholars, it clearly reflects the logic of the law of value operating under capitalist conditions, as Marx spelled it out in Das Kapital; the conditions must be created for the maximum expansion of capitalist markets, based on private capital accumulation as the basis for prosperity. But this, it is argued by the scholars, means in reality that the stronger capitalist nations force the weaker nations to conform to their agenda by various means - political, economic, military and cultural. Their strength is ultimately based on superior labor productivity, technological superiority and a superior bargaining position in the world market, enforced by military power, and it is justified with the belief that capitalism as we know it is the best of all possible worlds.

As an illustration of how this could operate, the IMF's representative in Malawi stated in 2002: "We have no expertise in food security policy, and we did not instruct the Malawi Government or the National Food Reserve Agency (NFRA) to dispose of the reserves". However, the aid organization ActionAid noted at that time that the IMF had nevertheless provided policy advice in an area which directly affected food security. The ActionAid report State of Disaster: Causes, Consequences & Policy Lessons From Malawi (June 13, 2002) raised the life-and-death question "what the relevance of development of macroeconomic targets, private sector led GDP growth, fiscal discipline and export growth targets are, if such variables seemingly have little impact on the ability of the economy to support food security?". Policies of primitive accumulation forced on governments could mean a lot more deaths, that is the grim warning.

Modern criticism of Marx's theory

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

A four-step modern argument is made against Marx's theory.

• The more superficial criticism of Marx's theory begins along the lines that Marx advances a rather cynical or moral critique of the origin and growth of capitalism; this, it is argued, is not an objective view. Thus, he exaggerates the evil actions which have occurred in history, or wrongly attributes exploitative and immoral features to capitalism, whereas capitalism is not really to blame. "You just cannot blame everything on capitalism", nor is capitalism "the root of all evil", which is no doubt true. Moreover Marx downplays the value of entrepreneurship and the daring adventures of explorers who set out to discover the world, and foster trade between countries. To a large extent, capitalism just developed incrementally through the growth of commerce, and people just decided they were better off for it.

• The next step in the argument is that Marx fails to take an objective view of the costs and benefits of commercial trade. You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs, as it were, and although admittedly bad things happened, and sacrifices were made (possibly unjustly), the overall or long-term benefits of trade are clear, because an enormous amount of new wealth was created, and living standards were raised enormously. So really the world-historical expansion of capitalism was a good thing after all, and we should look forward, and not backwards.

• The third step that can be made in the argument is that of liberal imperialism or humanitarian intervention. Here it is argued that empires, or at any rate foreign intervention by the great powers are really a good, progressive thing. The reason in that, in a world where the cultural gap between poor or "primitive" peoples and the most "advanced" wealthy countries is gigantic, the only way to let the poor partake and participate in the benefits of the modern world, and avoid barbarism, is through direct foreign intervention. Either the poor cannot get themselves out of poverty, barbarism and primitivism by themselves, or there is just too much corruption there etc. So backward countries and regions need a strong "helping hand" from more advanced countries to get on the road to progress. An endless refrain about the "nasty capitalists" or historical grievances is not going to help anybody now, and ignores the perfectly good intentions that business people have for all of humanity. Okay, they cannot do it all through charity and have to make a profit; but they do aim to improve human welfare with what they do, and if they do nothing, people will die as well, or live in disgusting conditions. We happen to be dependent on markets, and if we don't have them, people literally die, or live a life unworthy of a human being. A modern test case of this line of thinking is regime change in Iraq. "Eggs" were broken, okay, but look at the beautiful "omelet" that will result in the future, by the application of sound business methods, within the framework of the rule of law. The policy makers claim to have the best intentions, and circumstances being what they were, there was no other way to correct a dangerous, brutal and threatening situation. The alternative, doing nothing, would be worse.

• The fourth and final step in the argument is that the brutal methods to which Marx refers will be a thing of the past in the future, because they are no longer necessary and outmoded in the modern world. So really, they are increasingly only of historical relevance. In the complex information society of today, wars and brutality are increasingly made impossible, and we therefore can look forward to a gentler, more peaceful world, where force is used only in a few exceptional or abnormal cases, where things really get out of hand.

Primitive accumulation and the spreading of civilisation

There exists also a conservative style of argument of the "barbarians at the gates" variety to justify primitive accumulation. This argument revolves around the theme of "the defence of civilisation" and "keeping the troublemakers in their place". In this case, maintaining and spreading civilised values and lifestyles in the world simply requires tough action by the imperial homeland. Lack of resolute military action would lead to cultural and economic degeneration; no progress was ever made without a fight, and the gains from that fight have to be defended at all costs against the enemies of progress.

In this sense, John Stuart Mill wrote: "To suppose that the same international customs, and the same rules of international morality, can obtain between one civilized nation and another, and between civilized nations and barbarians, is a grave error, and one which no statesman can fall into, however it may be with those who, from a safe and unresponsible position, criticize statesmen. Among many reasons why the same rules cannot be applicable to situations so different, the two following are among the most important. In the first place, the rules of ordinary international morality imply reciprocity. But barbarians will not reciprocate. They cannot be depended on for observing any rules. Their minds are not capable of so great an effort, nor their will sufficiently under the influence of distant motives. In the next place, nations which are still barbarous have not got beyond the period during which it is likely to be for their benefit that they should be conquered and held in subjection by foreigners. Independence and nationality, so essential to the due growth and development of a people further advanced in improvement, are generally impediments to theirs. The sacred duties which civilized nations owe to the independence and nationality of each other, are not binding towards those to whom nationality and independence are either a certain evil, or at best a questionable good."

And further: "A civilized government cannot help having barbarous neighbours: when it has, it cannot always content itself with a defensive position, one of mere resistance to aggression. After a longer or shorter interval of forbearance, it either finds itself obliged to conquer them, or to assert so much authority over them, and so break their spirit, that they gradually sink into a state of dependence upon itself: and when that time arrives, they are indeed no longer formidable to it, but it has had so much to do with setting up and pulling down their governments, and they have grown so accustomed to lean on it, that it has become morally responsible for all evil it allows them to do. This is the history of the relations of the British government with the native States of India. It never was secure in its own Indian possessions until it had reduced the military power of those States to a nullity. But only despotic government only exists by its military power. When we had taken away theirs, we were forced, by the necessity of the case, to offer them ours instead of it. To enable them to dispense with large armies of their own, we bound ourselves to place at their disposal, and they bound themselves to receive, such an amount of military force as made us in fact masters of the country." John Stuart Mill, "A Few Words on Non-Interventionism", in: Fraser's Magazine, Vol. 60 (December 1859): pp. 766-76; reprinted in Essays on Equality, Law, and Education, vol. 11. of the Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, edited by John M. Robson and others, (Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1984), pp. 109-24; thanks to Prof. Perelman for this quote).

In a similar way, Condoleezza Rice argued on 30 September 2005 that "For 60 years, we often thought that we could achieve stability without liberty in the Middle East. And ultimately, we got neither. Now, we must recognize, as we do in every other region of the world, that liberty and democracy are the only guarantees of true stability and lasting security. (...) if you believe, as I do and as President Bush does, that the root cause of September 11th was the violent expression of a global extremist ideology, an ideology rooted in the oppression and despair of the modern Middle East, then we must speak to remove the source of this terror by transforming that troubled region (...) If we quit now, we will abandon Iraq's democrats at their time of greatest need. We will embolden every enemy of liberty and democracy across the Middle East. We will destroy any chance that the people of this region have of building a future of hope and opportunity. And we will make America more vulnerable."

Where to now with development studies?

It would probably take a modern Hegel or a new Marx to re-evaluate history in the light of such critiques, distinguishing between fact and apologism. But some are perfectly satisfied with the historical Marx we still have, while others, perhaps in a postmodern spirit, regard grand narratives about historical progress as suspect and useless for the purpose of what life is really about.

The question that remains, concerns the criteria used to assess human progress. Countries such as the USSR and China could industrialise only by breaking with the capitalist world market dominated by the imperialist powers; but, it is argued by critics, this industrialisation involved a process of "primitive socialist accumulation" just as coercive as its capitalist variant, transforming peasant masses into proletarians.

Marx's own attitude however is pretty clear: just as "history is always re-written by the victors" to emphasize their own achievements and downgrade the losers, there are no criteria free from biases introduced by people's own interests and stakes, i.e. no assessment can fully transcend the interests of social classes, however one might try.

Without denying the undoubted and impressive achievements of the bourgeoisie, Marx himself threw his lot in with the working class, believing that its destiny was to rule the world, and to get rid of the "muck of ages" through building a nonviolent communism, dissolving all class distinctions and oppression of people by other people. The categorical imperative was to revolt against all conditions that made people less than they could be and all forms of social oppression, armed with the tools of reason, science, art and politics. For this purpose, he helped to found the First International.

As for Hegel, he remarked in his Philosophy of Right: "When philosophy paints its grey in grey, then a shape of life has become old, and with grey in grey it cannot be rejuvenated, but only recognized for what it is. The owl of Minerva begins its flight only with the falling of dusk.’

We are wise after the event, and meantime we have to act. But if we don't learn from history, we might repeat our mistakes.

References

• Karl Marx, Das Kapital, Vol. 1, chapter 26

• Masimo de Angelis paper

• Paul Zarembka paper

• Michael Perelman, The Invention of Capitalism: Classical Political Economy and the Secret History of Primitive Accumulation

• Bill Warren, Imperialism, pioneer of capitalism.

• Ernest Mandel, Late Capitalism.

• Ernest Mandel, Primitive accumulation and the industrialisation of the third world.

• R. J. Holton, The Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism

• Andre Gunder Frank, World accumulation, 1492 - 1789. New York 1978

• Guardian article, "The New Liberal Imperialism"

• Raymond Aron, "What Empires cost and what profits they bring" (1962), reprinted in Raymond Aron, The Dawn of Universal History. New York: Basic Books, 2002, pp. 407-418.

• Frank Furedi, The new ideology of imperialism. Pluto Press.

• Ankie Hoogvelt, Globalisation and the Postcolonial World: The New Political Economy of Development.

• Ankie Hoogvelt interview:

• Jeffrey D. Sachs, The end of poverty; how we can make it happen in our lifetime (with a foreword by Bono). Penguin Books, 2005.

See also

• emergence of early capitalism
• capital accumulation
• relations of production
• accumulation by dispossession

• Marxist theory