The Temporality of Violence in Primitive Accumulation: A Soviet Subsidy to the Capitalist Transition

IF 0.5 Q4 POLITICAL SCIENCE
D. Siegel
{"title":"The Temporality of Violence in Primitive Accumulation: A Soviet Subsidy to the Capitalist Transition","authors":"D. Siegel","doi":"10.1080/07393148.2023.2237823","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Marx argued that transitions to capitalism require the violent dispossession of direct producers from their means of production. Many scholars have gone beyond the violence of transition to argue that state force is continuously used to maintain market relations. A major debate focuses on whether Marx’s “so-called” primitive accumulation was an historical or continuous process. This paper contributes an empirical puzzle to this debate: the dispossession of peasants across the former Soviet Union after 1991, which resulted from land privatization, was predominantly non-violent. This is due, I argue, to a temporal separation between violence, which occurred during the process of Stalinist collectivization, and the subsequent dispossession of cultivators in the 1990s. Peasant dispossession could unfold peacefully after 1991 only because historical violence was embedded in the structure of the collective farm—a structure that was maintained in the process of dispossession—thus constituting a Soviet “subsidy” to the capitalist transition.","PeriodicalId":46114,"journal":{"name":"New Political Science","volume":"2 21","pages":"526 - 548"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Political Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07393148.2023.2237823","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Marx argued that transitions to capitalism require the violent dispossession of direct producers from their means of production. Many scholars have gone beyond the violence of transition to argue that state force is continuously used to maintain market relations. A major debate focuses on whether Marx’s “so-called” primitive accumulation was an historical or continuous process. This paper contributes an empirical puzzle to this debate: the dispossession of peasants across the former Soviet Union after 1991, which resulted from land privatization, was predominantly non-violent. This is due, I argue, to a temporal separation between violence, which occurred during the process of Stalinist collectivization, and the subsequent dispossession of cultivators in the 1990s. Peasant dispossession could unfold peacefully after 1991 only because historical violence was embedded in the structure of the collective farm—a structure that was maintained in the process of dispossession—thus constituting a Soviet “subsidy” to the capitalist transition.
原始积累中暴力的暂时性:苏联对资本主义过渡的补贴
马克思认为,向资本主义的过渡需要暴力剥夺直接生产者的生产资料。许多学者已经超越了过渡的暴力,认为国家力量是持续不断地用来维持市场关系的。一个主要的争论集中在马克思的“所谓”原始积累是一个历史的还是连续的过程。这篇论文为这场辩论提供了一个实证难题:1991年后,前苏联对农民的剥夺主要是非暴力的,这是土地私有化的结果。我认为,这是由于在斯大林主义集体化过程中发生的暴力与随后在20世纪90年代对耕耘者的剥夺之间的暂时分离。1991年之后,农民的被剥夺得以和平地展开,只是因为历史上的暴力嵌入了集体农庄的结构中——这种结构在被剥夺的过程中得以维持——从而构成了苏联对资本主义转型的“补贴”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
New Political Science
New Political Science POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
53
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信