Nachiket Kulkarni

M.A.-4th Semester

The Concept of Accumulation by Dispossession and its Critique

Introduction

David Harvey’s conception of ‘Accumulation by Dispossession’, which he advances in his

book New Imperialism is an immensely valuable contribution to the understanding of
capitalism in the age of contemporary globalisation and for understanding the specificity of
its operation. Process of accumulation i.e. the reinvestment of surplus (profit earned in
production) is the differentia specifica of the capitalist mode of production. The process of
the accumulation of capital imparts the characteristic dynamism to the capitalist mode of
production (and likewise the contradictions generated by the process of accumulation lead to
periodic crises with the system coming to the standstill). Basically it is the process whereby
capitalist reinvests a part of profit (instead of consuming it entirely) which leads to more
profit (expanded reproduction). Expanded reproduction is the recursive process under
capitalism which gives it the dynamic character. Thus to understand how the capitalism
operates in our times i.e. the era of globalisation, it becomes crucial to understand the process
of accumulation of capital in our times. Hence the importance of Harvey’s work to bring this
question to centre-stage through the deployment of the concept of ‘Accumulation by
Dispossession’. As a brief overview of Harvey’s conception of AbD this note tries to answer
three questions-

1. What is Accumulation by Dispossession (henceforth AbD)?

2. Why the process of AbD is necessary for the working of Capitalism?
3. How the process of AbD has been predominant (relative to expanded reproduction) in
our times of globalisation?

In the later part of this note takes an overview of the major critiques of Harvey’s conception
of AbD (namely by Robert Brenner and Ben Fine) and also attempts to touch upon the
question of the political problems raised by the deployment of this concept.
What is Accumulation by Dispossession?

AbD is a theoretical and analytical expansion of the concept of ‘Primitive Accumulation’

deployed by Karl Marx in Capital Vol.1 to explain the genesis of capitalist accumulation.
Primitive accumulation is the starting point of the capitalist mode of production, which thus
by definition precedes capital accumulation and clears the way for capitalist system to stand
on its own legs. Basically it involves the separation of the labourer from the means of
production, the telling case of which is the ‘enclosure movement’ in 18th century Britain
whereby the land was expropriated from the peasantry and they were ‘freed’ in the famous
double sense of which Marx talks of in Capital Vol.1 (free from the means of production and
free to sell their labour power). In what sense is the concept of AbD is the expansion of the
concept of the Primitive Accumulation? Marx had deployed the concept of primitive
accumulation in a strict sense of being the ‘starting point’ of capitalistic mode of production
and not (its) ‘result’. However David Harvey argues that the process of the expropriation of
means of production is not only the starting point but accompanies the capitalist
accumulation throughout the history of capitalism. Harvey expands the scope of the concept
of primitive accumulation to include a vast number of processes (discussed in this note
briefly) which Marx had not included under the rubric of the concept of primitive
accumulation. Thus Harvey says that, ‘Since it seems peculiar to call an ongoing process
'primitive' or 'original' I shall,.. Substitute these terms by the concept of accumulation by
dispossession'. AbD includes processes such as ‘acquisition of agricultural land for non-
agricultural purposes or displacement of peasant-cultivators for corporate farming,
privatisation of common property resources, privatisation of previously nationalised
industries, processes of asset-stripping-devaluation-structured asset destruction through the
process of finncialisation. Transformation of the socialistic economies such as USSR and
China in capitalist direction (Shock Therapy in Russia and Dengist reforms in China) is also
sought to be explained through the concept of AbD. Basically AbD entails a process
whereby the sectors of economy or the factors of production which thus far have not been in
the fold of capitalist logic of profit making are subjected to it and this process entails
dispossessing the previous owners of these means of production. (Either it can be the shift
from ‘community ownership’ in pre-capitalist formations or from ‘public ownership’ in
dirigiste type or socialistic economies to private ownership.)
Expansion of the Concept of Primitive Accumlation

Why does then Harvey deem it necessary to expand the concept of primitive accumulation
from being a starting point of capitalist accumulation to the process which is ever present in
the history of capitalist mode of production? The answer is sought in the framework of
‘Over-Accumulation of Capital’. However Harvey is not the first to argue on these lines as
Harvey himself acknowledges ( as he begins his whole argument regarding AbD with a long
quotation from Rosa Luxemburg) the contribution of Rosa Luxemburg in this regard. Rosa
Luxemburg however deployed the framework of ‘Crises Generated by Under-consumption’
which necessitates the capture of external markets in the form of colonies, thus bringing pre-
capitalist formation in the fold of capitalist accumulation. This argument entails that
capitalism has always been imperialist (contrary to Lenin’s argument of Imperialism being
the highest stage of capitalism) and the existence of pre-capitalist markets is necessary for the
sustenance of capitalism. Harvey agrees in principle with the core of this argument which
posits the necessity of ‘external’ sources for sustaining capitalist accumulation; however this
necessity is not explained in terms of ‘under-consumption’ but ‘over-accumulation’. The
theory of over accumulation identifies the lack of opportunities for profitable investment as
the fundamental problem. Thus non-capitalist ‘external’ sectors or territories need be opened
up not only for trade (as Luxemburg’s argument posits) but also to permit capital to invest in
profitable ventures using cheaper labour power, raw materials, low-cost land, and the like.
Harvey takes forward Luxemburg’s understanding in another way by expanding the scope of
the ‘external sources’ or the ‘outside’ as it is not only the pre-capitalist formations which
constitute this ‘outside’ but also the non-capitalist sectors and capitalism can also ‘actively
manufacture’ the outside. Thus Harvey states that ‘Capitalism necessarily and always creates
its own other’. This position is the theoretical foundation of the deployment of the concept of
AbD and explanation of contemporary globalisation through this concept.

Neoliberal Globalisation as Accumulation by Dispossession

In Harvey’s schema two inter-related processes form the core of the contemporary neoliberal
globalisation that is ‘Privatisation’ and ‘Financialisation of Accumulation or Flexible
Accumulation’. These processes can be explained in terms of AbD and as a response to the
crisis of over-accumulation. Harvey argues that neoliberal globalisation shows how the
process of AbD has become the dominant form of accumulation. The emergence of the AbD
as the dominant form is the response to the crisis of over-accumulation which had started
appearing in the capitalist system in the late 60s and exacerbated in the early 70s,paving way
for the ascendance of neoliberal economic policies being followed by ( and enforced upon)
one nation-state after the other. Capitalism could come out of the crisis of over-accumulation
though opening up and subjecting new sectors of economy or hitherto non-capitalist
economies) to the logic of profit-making. Privatisation constitutes a major component of this
drive.

Privatisation as Dispossession

In the period of contemporary neoliberal globalisation, with the ascendance of the ‘free
market’ ideology assigning a minimalist role to the state, a drive of privatisation of public
goods has been launched worldwide (with differences in the extent of the process owing to
the specific co-relation of class-forces in different countries affecting the government
policies. However a generalised shift in the balance of forces towards capital and more
specifically globalised finance capital has been discernible throughout the world). This
involves privatisation of nationalised industries, public goods such as transport-housing-water
supply etc. The process of disinvestment of PSUs in India since the advent of neoliberal
economic reform which involves selling off public assets at throw-away prices to big
corporates is a case in point in this regard. Further investment of pension funds in stock
markets, withdrawal of social security benefits is also indicative of this process. Harvey also
includes in the mechanisms of protecting intellectual property rights as a process of AbD
which also involves the control of the capital over common property resources. The process
of corporatisation of agriculture and ascendance of global agri-business, which displaces
peasant-cultivators or family farming is visible worldwide, which also, according to Harvey
typifies AbD. Role of the state in facilitating these processes is crucial in Harvey’s
understanding of contemporary globalisation. State actively works at the behest of the finance
capital to dispossess people of their rights and facilitate AbD. The issue of inability of the
nation-states to chart out an alternative economic trajectory and being subordinated to finance
capital is related to the changes in the co-relation of class forces in last four decades and thus
the question of flexiblisaton of accumulation process under the sway of finance capital.
Flexible Accumulation and Informalisation

Harvey explains the transition from Fordist production to what he calls ‘flexible
accumulation’ in his book ‘The Condition of Post-Modernity’. This transition entailing
flexiblistion of the accumulation involves spatial restructuring of production processes and
tendency towards informalisation of the production process. These processes can be
explained in the framework of AbD and over-accumulation. Basically spatial restructuring of
the production process entails shifting the production units from advanced capitalist countries
to third world countries to access the cheap labour, for the realisation of absolute surplus
value. Informalisation of the production process is concomitant with this process which
involves contractualisation of labour, ‘reforms’ in labour laws and de-unionisation. Nation-
States in the third world under the sway of the finance capital (with the imminent threat of
capital flight) are forced to follow these set of policies. These processes in Harvey’s schema
are inextricably linked to AbD as it is the displaced peasantry through the expropriation of
their land largely constitutes the global reserve army of labour. In the case of informalisation-
deunionisation of the labour,AbD in the sense of dispossession of rights is also visible which
eventually leads to the decline or absence of the entitlements ( wages, pensions, social
security benefits etc) as well. But how this twin process of spatial restructuring and
informalisation is related to the crisis of over-accumulation? Basically operation of AbD
through these processes releases a set of assets (in this case labour power) at very low cost
and thus over-accumulated capital can seize hold of it and immediately turn it to profitable
use. Similarly the process of privatisation also entails such a release of assets at low or in
some cases zero cost and its capture by (over-accumulated capital). Placed in the context of
the processes which can be broadly categorised under privatisation and flexiblisation, AbD is
seen as the dominant process or regime of accumulation in the period of neoliberal
globalisation.

Major Criticisms of Accumulation by Dispossession

However Harvey’s concept of AbD has come under critique in the discussion of imperialism
within Marxist academia. It is necessary to point out at the outset itself that as harvey’s
understanding has historical precedence within the Marxist tradition, likewise the critiques of
AbD have also a strong resonance in the Marxist tradition. The luxemburgite position of
positi the necessity of non/pre-capitalist formations for the sustenance of capitalism has come
under severe critique and so has its extension in the ‘Transition Debate’ by Paul Sweezy(and
in a different way by dependency theorists such as A.G.Frank). Some of the major criticisms
of Harvey’s schema by Robert Brenner and Ben Fine are discussed below.

1. Both Fine and Brenner raise the issue of the concept of AbD being too expansive and
an unduly diverse factors being collected under this umbrella-concept. Brenner argues
that the processes clubbed under AbD such as ‘mergers and acquisition’ (which
basically correspond to the process of centralisation of capital which is a product of
the normal expanded reproduction itself), actions of the state to privilege one section
of the capital over the other, worsening of the condition of working classes (through
decline in wages or withdrawal of social security) are quite normal aspects or by-
products of the process of expanded reproduction itself. These processes may not
necessarily involve the subjection of hitherto non-capitalist sectors of economy to the
logic of capitalist profit making as they are part of this very logic itself.
2. The concept of AbD according Brenner is ‘inflated out of existence’ as the processes
that are quite normal to the capitalist exploitation such as dispossession of the default
debtors , having taken loans at ‘usurious’ rates from financial institutions which is a
direct expression of their propertylessness are also included under its rubric. Linking
flexiblisation of the accumulation process under the sway of finance capital, leading
to huge redistributions of income away from labour also needs to be seen as a
consequence of the contradictions generated through the working of expanded
reproduction and their resolution leading to the ascendance of finance capital. To
argue that privatisation constitutes AbD is correct in the case of erstwhile non-
capitalist economies such as Russia or China, where these processes actually serve as
the ‘starting point’ of capitalistic accumulation but then how does one look at the
Privatisation of the PSUs in a country like India where these were definitely run on
capitalist lines and the only difference after privatisation or disinvestment is in terms
of ownership? One can provocatively ask whether the acquisition of Chorus or Jaguar
by Tatas constitute AbD.
3. Fine questions Harvey understands whereby AbD is seen as the precondition for the
sustenance of the capital accumulation and argues that the case is actually otherwise.
 Since the speculative finance capital has gained ascendance over the capital in
production (this ascendance is again indicative of the tendency of the capital towards
centralisation) there is a lack of dynamism in the production sector and the processes
which Harvey clubs under AbD are the consequence of this lack of dynamism. Fine
takes the case of Privatisation of public sector industries in this regard and shows how
it is far from sustaining the systemic accumulation (although it promotes the private
accumulation of capital and finance capital) and actually leads to deindustrialisation.
4. Fine critiques Harvey’s conception of AbD in a most fundamental way as he argues
that there is confusion between ‘internal’ and ‘external’ in Harvey’s understanding.
The assumption that all possibilities of internal expansion of capital have exhausted is
itself extremely doubtful. We can take the case of the displacement of peasant-
cultivators by the corporatized agriculture and agri-business. If this process is to be
understood as AbD then the underlying assumption is that the peasant farming or
family farming has hitherto been outside the ambit of capitalism which is now been
captured by the capital. However this assumption itself in most cases would be
factually wrong with the trend towards the development of capitalism in agriculture.
Further to argue that the possibilities of internal expansion have been exhausted
would not hold true as the possibilities of radical land-redistribution leading to the
development of capitalism in agriculture from below (the American path as discussed
by lenin) still exist and in many cases have not been explored at all owing to the class
alliance of the bourgeoisie with the landed classes.
5. Fine questions the very assumption of the necessity of the ‘external sources for the
sustenance of accumulation. This argument as Fine argues cannot explain the ‘Post-
War Boom’ which was in fact facilitated by the factors exactly opposite to that
described by Harvey under the rubric of AbD, which involved Keynesian type
policies of demand management and interventionist welfare state, and this boom was
also accompanied by decolonisation.

Basically the criticisms surround the ‘expansive’ nature of the concept of AbD which
make it bereft of its historical specificity and also raise the problems with the position
that ‘capitalism creates its own other’ as the sectors which are included in the ‘other’
are actually not part of the other but constitute capitalism itself. Hence the argument
of AbD having become the dominant form relative to expanded reproduction cannot
hold good and the analytical usefulness of the concept of AbD itself comes under
doubt for understanding the contemporary neoliberal globalisation.

Towards the end two issues around the concept of AbD which are related to the
political praxis seeking to transcend the capitalist mode of production can be
highlighted. Firstly, the very understanding of the capitalism (where primitive
accumulation or AbD is ever present) at the core of this concepts negates any
historically positive role of capitalism, especially in terms of decimating the
oppressive feudal relations. It is a different question whether in erstwhile colonised-
backward capitalist countries actually existing is able to perform this role or not. The
problem is that analytical possibility of such a progressive role is itself denied in this
framework. Second point which is a logical corollary of the first is regarding the
vision of post-capitalist future entailed in the anti-capitalist struggles over
accumulation by dispossession. With the negation of the progressive role of
capitalism there persists an imminent threat of the rejection of ‘modernity’ itself.
Opposition to capitalism or AbD can take retrogressive and even obscurantist forms
and what Harvey himself calls the ‘Repressive Intimacy of Traditional Communities’
can pass over. Such a ‘conservative’ tilt actually poses a threat to the anti-capitalist
struggles which necessarily has to be a progressive one-leading to the expansion of
human freedom. The problem in distinguishing those sections exploited by
imperialism from those exploited by capitalism ( as done by Harvey) is obvious as the
sections exploited by imperialism ( understood as AbD) are not considered to be
exploited by capitalism, i.e. in the process of expanded reproduction, hence the
disjunction between their struggles and outlook. However this assumption is
erroneous as what is considered to be constituted the ‘periphery’ ( say unorganised
workers) exploited by imperialism has actually become the very core of the capitalist
mode of production of itself, thus reaffirming the necessity of the militant working
class action for transcendence of capitalism, in the age when ‘retreat of the class’ is
announced and advocacy of ‘identity politics’ has become the fashion.
 Bibliography

Brenner, Robert (2004), ‘What Is, and What Is Not, Imperialism?’ Historical
Materialism, 14 (4), pp.3-67
Fine, Ben 2004), ‘Debating the ‘New Imperialism’, Historical Materialism, 14 (4), pp-
241-278
Harvey, David (2003), ‘The New Imperialism’, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp-
127-173
Harvey, David (1990), ‘The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins
of Cultural Change’, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, pp-141-188