Theory as History, which was awarded the Deutscher Memorial Prize in 2011, collects together several of Jairus Banaji’s essays published over the course of 30 years. This symposium comprises four essays engaging with different aspects of the powerful and provocative contributions in Theory as History, as well as an essay in response by Banaji. The Editorial Introduction sketches elements of Banaji’s work and highlights some of the main arguments advanced in the symposium.
On the latter see especially Banaji2007. A full bibliography of Banaji’s published work appears in Theory as History (Banaji 2010 pp. 361–3). Several papers are directly available from Banaji’s SOAS web page: <http://www.soas.ac.uk/staff/staff60047.php>.
Banaji2010p. 54 (citing Marx 1993 p. 463).
This symposium was commissioned in June2010over a year before Theory as History was announced as the winner of the 2011 Isaac and Tamara Deutscher Memorial Prize.
Banaji2010pp. 13 and 15. Banaji elaborates on this point in a direct engagement with Marx: ‘The point . . . is not to deny the centrality of “free labour” to the accumulation of capital in the modern economy (modern forms of capitalism) but to undermine the particular way Marx attempts to construe the link between wage-labour and capital. In Chapter 7 [of Capital Volume I] Marx tends to argue as if the use of free labour is a logical presupposition of capital when it is clear that individual capitalists exploit labour in a multiplicity of forms and this not just when capital exists as manufacture and domestic industry.’ (Banaji 2010 p. 128; on the ‘two aspects to Marx’s handling of free labour’ see pp. 137–9.)
Banaji2010p. 104. On the logic of deployment see especially Chapters 3 and 6.
For Banaji’s (2010) reading see Chapter 10.
Banaji2010p. 22 also p. 354.
Wickham2005. See Blackledge (ed.) 2011 for a collection of essays on Wickham’s book where Chapter 7 of Banaji 2010 was originally published.
See especially Post2011.
Post2013pp. 80 80 81.
Banaji2010p. 256 see also Chapter 2. While not in explicit reference to Dobb the following passage further emphasises Banaji’s point: ‘agrarian capitalism could and did take radically different forms even within individual countries. The entrenched orthodoxy that England’s history supplies us with an archetype of capitalist agriculture is a myth. It is much less credible today as historians begin to map the very different ways in which capitalism evolved in agriculture and continues to do so. There is no “pure” agrarian capitalism.’ (Banaji 2010 p. 355.)