Colonial Capitalism and Rural Class Formation (ص 243)
غرض
- عنوان
- Colonial Capitalism and Rural Class Formation (ص 243)
- المحتوى
-
Authors argue that land in the co-operatives was not privately
owned, thus concluding that land was collectively or communally owned.
Moreover, they claim that wage labour was in princibdle forbidden in
the co-operatives, hence strengthening further their contention that
the co-operatives were socialist or even communist.
Landed Froperty and the Mode of Production
Instead of finding out who actually owned and controlled the land
and how land was distributed to members of the co-operatives, most
authors assumed that private property within the Zionist settlements
was absent and consequently concluded that the means of production in
these settlements were socialized. As a result, in the vast majority
of the literature the Kibbutz is described as an example of “workers
control and ownership of the means of production" (25) or as an
egalitarian society of "total equality among its members"
(Spencer,1981:171). The term "“communistic society" is often used
(Viteles, 1944; Spiro, 1973; Bettelheim,1$71).
This literature suffers from a major theoretical flaw. It fails to
show why the form of landed property necessarily indicates a specific
mode of production.
In fact there is no necessary correspondence between the form of
landed property and the mode of production. Capitalism can be
introduced through non-capitalist forms of land-holding, as a
consequence which may or may not have been intended. Whether landed
property was private, individual, state owned or communally possessed,
it must be stressed, capitalism at all stages of its development is
capable of penetrating the agrarian economy.
All forms of property, Saleh maintains, are capable of providing
229
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. - تاريخ
- ١٩٨٩
- المنشئ
- Nahla Abdo-Zubi
Contribute
Not viewed