Marxist Debates on the Origin of Capitalism Explored Based on an Althusserian Perspective
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
Abstract This article examines Marxist debates surrounding the origins of capitalism, focusing on the “primitive accumulation of capital” as posited by Karl Marx and its implications for understanding the transition from feudalism to capitalism. Through an Althusserian lens emphasizing “overdetermination”, the article examines three theories involved in two major intra-Marxist debates: the Brenner-Wallerstein controversy, and the Wallerstein-Frank exchange. This analysis contends that Wallerstein’s framework adheres more closely to historical materialism, despite its one concept related to empiricism (the concept of “World-System”). Both Brenner’s and Frank’s frameworks devolve into empiricist analysis—Brenner into humanism and Frank into historicism—making their theories on the origin of capitalism completely wrong. The article asserts that a proper understanding of capitalism’s origins must account for the “overdetermination”, meaning the dominant relation of production defining the “totality of the relations of production” during a specific historical period. Such an understanding would lead to considering the social role of colonialism in the development of capitalism as a mode of production. Ultimately, the article argues that while Wallerstein’s theory is the most accurate in its historical materialist approach, its “World-System” conceptualization blurs essential Marxist principles, necessitating a return to the orthodox framework of the “mode of production”.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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