Accumulation, Imperialism, and Pre-Capitalist Formations: Luxemburg and Marx on the non-Western World
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dramatic changes that have unfolded in the global economy in recent years make this a worthwhile moment to explore the similarities and differences between Karl Marx and Rosa Luxemburg’s understanding of what is now termed the “globalization of capital.” Both Marx and Luxemburg were intensely interested in the impact of the expansive logic of capital accumulation upon non-capitalist or developing societies, as seen in Marx’s late writings on agrarian societies, communal formations in India and North Africa, and among Native Americans and in Luxemburg’s studies of some of the same formations in her Introduction to Political Economy and Accumulation of Capital. Although Luxemburg was unaware of Marx’s writings on these issues, since many of Marx’s manuscripts on non-Western societies are only now coming to light, there are striking similarities, on a number of issues, between her approach and Marx’s analyses. At the same time, there are also serious differences in their approach, in that Marx adopted a far less unilinear and deterministic approach to the fate of non-Western social formations as compared to Luxemburg. This paper explores these similarities and differences by exploring a number of manuscripts by Marx and Luxemburg that have only recently come to light or which have received insufficient attention, such as Marx’s Notebooks on Kovalevsky and Luxemburg’s studies of pre-capitalist societies of 1907, originally composed as part of her research for the Introduction to Political Economy. One of the article’s aims is to generate a re-examination of both Marx and Luxemburg’s contributions in light of these less-known writings. Les transformations dramatiques qui ont eu lieu dans l’économie globale ces dernières années rendent opportun d’explorer les similarités et les différences entre les analyses de ce qui est maintenant appelé la mondialisation du capital par Karl Marx et Rosa Luxemburg. Marx et Luxemburg étaient tous les deux très intéressés par l’impact de la logique expansionniste de l’accumulation du capital sur les sociétés non capitalistes et celles en voie de développement, comme en témoignent les écrits tardifs de Marx sur les sociétés agraires, les structures communales en Inde, en Afrique du Nord et parmi les Autochtones de l’Amérique du Nord, ainsi que les études de Luxemburg de certaines de ces mêmes formations dans son Introduction à l’économie politique et L’accumulation du capital. Bien que Luxemburg n’était pas au courant des écrits de Marx sur ces sujets, parce que beaucoup de ses manuscrits sur les sociétés non-Occidentales sont seulement maintenant en train de paraître, il y a des similarités frappantes, sur de nombreux sujets, entre leurs approches. En même temps, il demeure des différences importantes, dans la mesure où Marx a adopté une approche beaucoup moins linéaire et déterministe que Luxemburg à propos du destin des structures sociales non-Occidentales. Cet article explore ces similarités et différences en explorant plusieurs manuscrits de Marx et Luxemburg qui ont seulement récemment vu le jour ou qui ont reçu une attention insuffisante, comme Les Carnets de Kovalevsky de Marx et les études de Luxemburg sur les sociétés pré-capitalistes de 1907, écrites à l’origine dans le cadre de ses recherches pour l’Introduction à l’économie politique. Un des objectifs de l’article est de générer un nouvel examen des contributions de Marx et de Luxemburg, à la lumière de ces écrits moins bien connus.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it