Do you want to stay informed about this journal? Click the buttons to subscribe to our alerts.
On ‘The Problem with Brenner’: The Paradox of Agency and the Heresy of Reification
In: Historical MaterialismAbstract
Knafo and Teschke’s surprisingly polemical critique of Brenner’s work is derived from earlier work which applies the same critique arising out of the agency/structure debate in International Relations theory. Casting Brenner’s work as increasingly structuralist over time and therefore increasingly prone to reify social relations, thereby suppressing or downplaying the role of agency, Knafo and Teschke ask their readers to take such claims at face value, offering no close textual reading of Brenner’s work. Focusing almost entirely on method rather than on substance and by framing their critique within the confines of the unending debate over structure and agency, Knafo and Teschke’s claim that Brenner’s work consistently reifies social relations – presuming but not demonstrating that this is his intent – obscures and fails to engage substantively with his powerful historical contributions, or to offer alternative definitions or historical theories.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Albritton, Robert 1993, ‘Did Agrarian Capitalism Really Exist?’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 20, 3: 419–441.
-
Albritton, Robert 2000, ‘Agrarian Capitalism: A Response to Michael Žmolek’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 28, 1: 147–154.
-
Albritton, Robert 2002, ‘Theory and History in Thinking the Transition to Capitalism: A Reply to Žmolek’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 29, 2: 125–134.
-
Albritton, Robert 2004, ‘Clarifying the Root Differences: Considerations on the Debate with Žmolek’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 31, 2: 306–312.
-
Althusser, Louis and Étienne Balibar 1977, Reading Capital, Part II: ‘The Object of Capital’, translated by Ben Brewster, London: NLB, available at: <https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1968/reading-capital/ch02.htm>.
-
Anievas, Alexander and Kerem Nişancıoğlu 2014, ‘The Poverty of Political Marxism’, International Socialist Review, 94: 1–25 [pre-copy-edited version].
-
Aston, Trevor Henry and C.H.E. Philpin (eds.) 1987, The Brenner Debate: Agrarian Class Structure and Economic Development in Pre-Industrial Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Billington, James 1982, ‘Narcissus the Revolutionary’, New York Times, Section 7, 9 May: 9, available at: <https://www.nytimes.com/1982/05/09/books/narcissus-the-revolutionary.html>, accessed 20 March 2021.
-
Bois, Guy 1987, ‘Against the Neo-Malthusian Orthodoxy’, in Aston and Philpin (eds.) 1987, pp. 107–18.
-
Brenner, Robert 1987, ‘Agrarian Class Structure and Economic Development in Pre-Industrial Europe’, in Aston and Philpin (eds.) 1987, pp. 18–71.
-
Brenner, Robert 2007, ‘Property and Progress: Where Adam Smith Went Wrong’, in Marxist History-Writing for the Twenty-First Century, edited by Chris Wickham, pp. 49–111, Oxford: Oxford University Press/The British Academy.
-
Comninel, George C. 2000, ‘English Feudalism and the Origins of Capitalism’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 27, 4: 1–53.
-
Comninel, George C. 2012, ‘Capital and Historical Materialism’, Marxism 21, Department of Political Science, York University, Toronto, Canada, available at: <http://www.yorku.ca/comninel/courses/ComninelPDF/Capital%20and%20Historical%20Materialsim%20-%20Marxism21.pdf>.
-
Comninel, George C. 2019, Alienation and Emancipation in the Work of Karl Marx, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
-
James, David 2014, ‘The Concept of Practical Necessity from Thucydides to Marx’, Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory, 61, 138: 1–17.
-
Knafo, Samuel 2002, ‘The Fetishising Subject in Marx’s Capital’, Capital & Class, 76: 145–175.
-
Knafo, Samuel 2007, ‘Political Marxism and Value Theory: Bridging the Gap between Theory and History’, Historical Materialism, 15: 75–104.
-
Knafo, Samuel 2010, ‘Critical Approaches and the Legacy of the Agent/Structure Debate in International Relations’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 23, 3: 493–516.
-
Knafo, Samuel 2013, The Making of Modern Finance: Liberal Governance and the Gold Standard, London: Routledge.
-
Knafo, Samuel and Benno Teschke 2017, ‘The Rules of Reproduction of Capitalism: A Historicist Critique’, Centre for Global Political Economy working paper No. 12, Falmer: University of Sussex.
-
Knafo, Samuel and Benno Teschke 2020, ‘Political Marxism and the Rules of Reproduction of Capitalism: A Historicist Critique’, Historical Materialism, 27 May, <DOI:10.1163/1569206X-00001441>.
-
Knafo, Samuel and Benno Teschke 2021, ‘Political Marxism and the Rules of Reproduction of Capitalism: A Historicist Critique’, Historical Materialism, 29, 3.
-
Linebaugh, Peter 2014, Stop Thief! The Commons, Enclosures and Resistance, Oakland, CA: PM Press.
-
Marx, Karl 1998 [1894], Capital, Volume III: The Process of Capitalist Production as a Whole, New York: International Publishers.
-
Post, Charles 2011, The American Road to Capitalism: Studies in Class Structure, Economic Development and Political Conflict, 1620–1877, Historical Materialism Book Series, Leiden: Brill.
-
Post, Charles 2013, ‘Capitalism, Laws of Motion and Social Relations of Production’, Historical Materialism, 21, 4: 71–91.
-
Teschke, Benno 2003, The Myth of 1648: Class, Geopolitics, and the Making of Modern International Relations, London: Verso.
-
Teschke, Benno and Hannes Lacher 2007, ‘The Changing “Logics” of Capitalist Competition’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 20, 4: 565–580.
-
Thomas, Paul 1980, Karl Marx and the Anarchists, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
-
Thompson, Edward Palmer 1978, The Poverty of Theory and Other Essays, London: The Merlin Press.
-
Thompson, Edward Palmer 1991 [1963], The Making of the English Working Class, Revised Edition, London: Penguin.
-
Thompson, Edward Palmer 1993, ‘Time, Work-Discipline and Industrial Capitalism’, in Customs in Common, New York: The New Press.
-
Wood, Ellen Meiskins 1981, ‘The Separation of the Economic and the Political in Capitalism’, New Left Review, I, 127: 66–95.
-
Wood, Ellen Meiksins 1995, Democracy against Capitalism: Renewing Historical Materialism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Wood, Ellen Meiksins 2002a [1999], The Origin of Capitalism: A Longer View, London: Verso.
-
Wood, Ellen Meiksins 2002b, ‘The Question of Market Dependence’, Journal of Agrarian Change, 2, 1: 50–87.
-
Žmolek, Michael Andrew 2000, ‘The Case for Agrarian Capitalism: A Response to Albritton’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 27, 4: 138–159.
-
Žmolek, Michael Andrew 2001, ‘Further Thoughts on Agrarian Capitalism: A Reply to Albritton’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 29, 1: 129–154.
-
Žmolek, Michael Andrew 2004, ‘Debating Agrarian Capitalism: A Rejoinder to Albritton’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 31, 2: 276–305.
-
Žmolek, Michael Andrew 2013, Rethinking the Industrial Revolution: Five Centuries of Transition from Agrarian to Industrial Capitalism in England, Historical Materialism Book Series, Leiden: Brill.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 728 | 369 | 17 |
| Full Text Views | 83 | 33 | 8 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 269 | 95 | 13 |
On ‘The Problem with Brenner’: The Paradox of Agency and the Heresy of Reification
In: Historical MaterialismAbstract
Knafo and Teschke’s surprisingly polemical critique of Brenner’s work is derived from earlier work which applies the same critique arising out of the agency/structure debate in International Relations theory. Casting Brenner’s work as increasingly structuralist over time and therefore increasingly prone to reify social relations, thereby suppressing or downplaying the role of agency, Knafo and Teschke ask their readers to take such claims at face value, offering no close textual reading of Brenner’s work. Focusing almost entirely on method rather than on substance and by framing their critique within the confines of the unending debate over structure and agency, Knafo and Teschke’s claim that Brenner’s work consistently reifies social relations – presuming but not demonstrating that this is his intent – obscures and fails to engage substantively with his powerful historical contributions, or to offer alternative definitions or historical theories.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 728 | 369 | 17 |
| Full Text Views | 83 | 33 | 8 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 269 | 95 | 13 |