Colonial Capitalism and Rural Class Formation (ص 34)

غرض

عنوان

Colonial Capitalism and Rural Class Formation (ص 34)

المحتوى

Palestinian history never changed throughout the Ottoman rule; the
Ottoman state remained the major or only proprietor of land and,
consequently, the only extractor of surplus labour; the direct
producers continued to depend on the village/commune for land while at
the same time remaining "free" from relations of bondage.
Based on these characterizations of the pre-capitalist history of
Palestine, Gozansky, not unexpectedly, concludes that no force could
have changed the Palestinian economy unless it was a force imposed
from the outside. It was only after the imposition of capitalism
through British colonial rule and Zionist settlement, she wrote, that
Palestine's "...traditional oriental structure was broken..."
(Gozansky,1986:23-24). Only then, ‘modern’ capitalist forms of land
tenure evolved and the seclusion and unity of the Palestinian village
was broken (Gozansky,1986:25-~-26).
The AMP: A Critique
The concept of the Asiatic Mode of Production has long been the
subject of heated debate. As early as the 1930's various scholars
argued that the whole notion was fallacious and ought to be discarded
(Rapp, 1987; Mandel,1971; Naqvi,1972). It has been attacked on
theoretical and ideological bases as well as on empirical grounds.
Other scholars have rejected the concept as. ethnocentric and
culturally biased (Saleh,1979; Hindess and Hirst,1975), arguing that
the "Occidental/Oriental" classification, which is geographically
determined, renders the concept theoretically untenable.
There is yet another school of Marxists who have adopted the model
only in a very critical manner, rejecting what they see as its static
20
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

هو جزء من

Colonial Capitalism and Rural Class Formation

تاريخ

١٩٨٩

المنشئ

Nahla Abdo-Zubi

مجموعات العناصر

Generated Pages Set

Theses رسائل ماجستير ودكتوراه