LAUSR

The case advanced in these two books is a curious yet familiar one. Its strangeness derives from the fact that what purports to be a Marxist analysis of the mode of production in ancient and modern economies is, much rather, a non-Marxist history of global trade and exchange. Each book contributes to the central argument that a pan-historical form of capitalism stretches from ancient society to the present, in effect negating Marxist theory about the dynamics leading to a transition from one mode of production to another. Familiarity stems from two things. First, arguments made by Banaji are not in fact new, resting on earlier analyses (Brown on late antiquity, Hilferding on finance capital, Rodinson on Islamic capitalism). And second, the case he makes appears to be the latest in what is now a long series of attempts to debunk Marxism and, with it, any prospect for a socialist transition. Among the reasons invoked currently as to why Marxism is off the political agenda is that its historical subject – the working class – is either absent, too fragmented or lacks interest in socialist objectives; that opposition to capitalism these days is best conducted by non-class categories and identities; that capitalism is not yet sufficiently developed to make a transition feasible; that it is not the right kind of capitalism; and that the contradictions generated by neoliberalism can be solved by returning to a ‘caring’/’kinder’ form of accumulation.1 One way or another, we are variously informed, capitalism is not – or is no longer – what we thought it was, the inference being that its political overthrow is either postponed sine die or else undesirable, and anyway now impossible. Of course, all such prognoses cannot be but music to the ears of capitalists themselves.