![]() Engels, in an 1890 letter clarifying the Marxist analysis of capitalism, wrote that economic relations are determinant ‘in the last instance.’ For Marx, in his 1857 introduction to the Grundrisse, ‘the simplest economic category. Its unity is derived from the fact that its economic relations determine every other aspect of social life. ![]() One of the crucial claims made by Marx and Engels is that capitalist society forms a unitary totality. Incorporating it might meaningfully improve our understanding of the specificity of capitalism, casting doubt on some of the more formulaic means by which Marxists study most of human history as well as clarifying the nature of Marx’s objection to capitalism. This insight has been missing for too long when Marxist historians study non-capitalist social forms. As such, neither seriously considers the possibility raised by several twentieth century Marxist theorists of capitalism: that capitalism is in fact unique in possessing such a unifying relation – the commodity structure. Following in the footsteps of Marx’s analysis of capitalism, both of these scholars aim to locate the single economic relationship from which the entirety of feudal society unfolded. Both Anderson and Banaji can be treated as exemplars of this wider tradition of historians for whom it is axiomatic that something called ‘feudalism’ once operated as a real social totality. But what if a foundational theoretical mistake has governed these inquiries for decades, a mistake that has profound implications for Marxist history-writing more generally? This theoretical error is evident in the work of two of the foremost Marxist historians, Perry Anderson and Jairus Banaji. The study of feudal society, its birth and its decline is central to Marxist historiography.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |