1
00:00:05,100 --> 00:00:16,950
So thanks very much, first to Andrew, Jeremy and Chris for inviting me as a non economic historian to participate in this set of conversations,

2
00:00:16,950 --> 00:00:24,660
and I should also point out that what I'm presenting today has come out of another series of conversations I've been having with Andrew and others,

3
00:00:24,660 --> 00:00:32,040
some of whom are in the audience over the last several months as part of a project called Political Economy and Culture and Global History.

4
00:00:32,040 --> 00:00:37,230
So if you're in need of Googling, things might be better to Google that rather than me.

5
00:00:37,230 --> 00:00:41,820
I'm drawing here very much on the collective work of this group.

6
00:00:41,820 --> 00:00:52,110
In response to yesterday's discussion, I want to begin by briefly situating what I'm going to say in relation to the Great Divergence debate.

7
00:00:52,110 --> 00:00:59,160
As I understand it, this debate assumes discrete, separable geographical units, which can be compared with each other.

8
00:00:59,160 --> 00:01:03,960
One unit becomes, broadly speaking, capitalist and other remains non capitalist.

9
00:01:03,960 --> 00:01:10,710
The divergence is then explained based on factors internal to each unit, and we heard about various such factors yesterday.

10
00:01:10,710 --> 00:01:16,410
The major difficulty with this for me, is that over this period, when divergence is being demonstrated,

11
00:01:16,410 --> 00:01:22,680
these different parts of the world, however we want to define them into units, were becoming more and more connected up with each other.

12
00:01:22,680 --> 00:01:31,530
So that suggests that as divergence increases, the likelihood we can explain it by internal factors within each unit is decreasing.

13
00:01:31,530 --> 00:01:36,990
And I think it's this kind of consideration which led the late Emmanuel Wallerstein,

14
00:01:36,990 --> 00:01:43,410
whose name has been invoked a few times to come to the notion of a single world system

15
00:01:43,410 --> 00:01:50,640
which unified divergent areas and distribution costs and benefits unequally between them.

16
00:01:50,640 --> 00:01:55,020
So I'm concerned in this paper with how very different if you like.

17
00:01:55,020 --> 00:02:01,710
Divergent spheres can coexist in close connexion with each other and how they can mutually reshape each other over time.

18
00:02:01,710 --> 00:02:09,000
I'm going to talk about this first, really in terms of two spheres, which I'm calling the economy and the household.

19
00:02:09,000 --> 00:02:15,900
I'll start with a brief history of the categories. Look at their role within certain transitions, within the history of capitalism,

20
00:02:15,900 --> 00:02:21,780
and then as a way of modelling how the two categories can coexist in close connexion with each other.

21
00:02:21,780 --> 00:02:30,210
And finally, I'll suggest the possible wider salience of this kind of modelling for global history more generally as a way of addressing the issues.

22
00:02:30,210 --> 00:02:34,530
The Great Divergence debate is coming out from a rather different direction.

23
00:02:34,530 --> 00:02:47,040
So in some economics, at least a household is used as a kind of basic unit measures such as household income, as in this graph from the OECD.

24
00:02:47,040 --> 00:02:50,910
Not very much analytical work seems to be going into defining what the household is.

25
00:02:50,910 --> 00:02:57,300
This definition that accompanies it has lots of interesting other things.

26
00:02:57,300 --> 00:03:07,380
Income net grows real, etc., but not household in one piece of the literature on this kind of definition.

27
00:03:07,380 --> 00:03:11,280
This paper by meeting Lindberg, they call it a unit, the unit,

28
00:03:11,280 --> 00:03:17,010
which most closely captures resource sharing that can then be used as a base unit within economic analysis.

29
00:03:17,010 --> 00:03:18,900
But what goes on inside the household?

30
00:03:18,900 --> 00:03:25,980
This resource sharing, which includes a lot of labour, is not usually dealt with by Orthodox economic analysis, as far as I'm aware.

31
00:03:25,980 --> 00:03:29,310
So this initial polarity is where I'm starting from.

32
00:03:29,310 --> 00:03:33,750
There is this great encompassing sphere called the economy, which has its rules and norms,

33
00:03:33,750 --> 00:03:39,510
and then these small but more or less universally present household spheres embedded within it,

34
00:03:39,510 --> 00:03:45,900
which act for certain purposes as what we might call economic units, but internally work according to very different norms.

35
00:03:45,900 --> 00:03:51,240
Now here, as some of you may have suspected, we encounter an etymological irony because of course,

36
00:03:51,240 --> 00:03:55,770
the term economy derives from the Greek economy and household management.

37
00:03:55,770 --> 00:04:04,860
If we go back to Aristotle and I'm drawing here on this account by Keith Tribe, we find he defines Aristotle defines,

38
00:04:04,860 --> 00:04:11,400
although not in very much detail, something called economic techno, the house, the art of household management.

39
00:04:11,400 --> 00:04:16,800
This entails the good management by the master of a household, which consists of his property,

40
00:04:16,800 --> 00:04:20,970
which includes other members of the household, wife, children, servants and slaves.

41
00:04:20,970 --> 00:04:27,510
Also, animals and importantly, land. It's basically conceived of by Aristotle, according to Tribe, as a rural household.

42
00:04:27,510 --> 00:04:32,850
It is ruled by a hierarchical order by the master who is and only could.

43
00:04:32,850 --> 00:04:37,350
A spot is the despots of the household, so it's distinct from the sphere of politics,

44
00:04:37,350 --> 00:04:42,210
the polis being an association of free men and equals for Aristotle.

45
00:04:42,210 --> 00:04:48,660
But it is also ruled by a moral order, so it's destroying things from this other sphere, which he calls crematories most money getting.

46
00:04:48,660 --> 00:04:52,980
This is an amoral or immoral activity which happens outside the household.

47
00:04:52,980 --> 00:04:57,420
Those are his two terms already in Hellenistic times.

48
00:04:57,420 --> 00:05:00,080
Again, following tribe, the metaphor of our economy was based.

49
00:05:00,080 --> 00:05:08,990
Applied metaphorically to things other than the household with the sense of a properly governed harmonious order, the autonomy of one's own life,

50
00:05:08,990 --> 00:05:15,470
of the affairs of a city of the cosmos that is nature in early modern Europe, it begins to apply,

51
00:05:15,470 --> 00:05:22,370
be applied very often to monarchical policy with a king who enforces the moral hierarchical order.

52
00:05:22,370 --> 00:05:28,790
But from the 18th century, a new kind of metaphorical use begins to emerge by way of a familiar story,

53
00:05:28,790 --> 00:05:38,000
really of Lock Rousseau, Physicalize and Adam Smith, which maintains the idea of an internal ordering or balance in the sphere of human livelihood,

54
00:05:38,000 --> 00:05:43,880
but does away with the notion that this order is actively directed in a moral and hierarchical way.

55
00:05:43,880 --> 00:05:49,880
Instead, it is governed by natural law becomes an internally balanced, harmonious machine.

56
00:05:49,880 --> 00:05:52,280
It can run itself with increasing perfection.

57
00:05:52,280 --> 00:06:00,230
If only we could be masters can be prevented from interfering with it so gradually and unevenly from the 18th to the 20th century.

58
00:06:00,230 --> 00:06:08,090
Over much of the world, this idea of a household without a master the economy becomes a dominant when it comes to just describe a sphere which,

59
00:06:08,090 --> 00:06:12,200
from the older perspective, might be seen simply as money getting as crematories.

60
00:06:12,200 --> 00:06:16,370
Most underpinning its rise, though, is the encroachment of the sphere,

61
00:06:16,370 --> 00:06:21,920
with its new naturalistic justification onto the domain of actual households and other spheres,

62
00:06:21,920 --> 00:06:26,120
which did not operate according to this new economic logic.

63
00:06:26,120 --> 00:06:30,290
So more and more of the activities of human livelihood, notably labour and production,

64
00:06:30,290 --> 00:06:34,640
but also distribution etc are removed from the original economic,

65
00:06:34,640 --> 00:06:39,980
particularly thinking here of the rural household and other morally and highly governance spheres,

66
00:06:39,980 --> 00:06:45,290
and instead come to be governed by what we can now call economic rules.

67
00:06:45,290 --> 00:06:52,520
So the relative importance of these two spheres becomes, in a sense, inverted, but the household doesn't just wither away.

68
00:06:52,520 --> 00:06:56,690
Instead, we can see that changing relationship as a mutual reshaping.

69
00:06:56,690 --> 00:07:02,690
This can be seen if we look at a few probably familiar instances from the history of capitalism.

70
00:07:02,690 --> 00:07:12,830
I'm thinking here initially of what the new economic model represents, often as relations between individuals.

71
00:07:12,830 --> 00:07:21,200
So there's a central tension which Andrew Sartori has pointed to in his book Liberalism in Empire Within Liberal,

72
00:07:21,200 --> 00:07:29,930
or what he calls lock in thinking between capitalism as a set of horizontal exchange relations between reasonably equal economic actors.

73
00:07:29,930 --> 00:07:42,380
So. Like that and capitalism as providing for capital accumulation, which leads to the exploitation of the poor by the wealthy.

74
00:07:42,380 --> 00:07:46,580
What we might think of as the individual actors in this diagram,

75
00:07:46,580 --> 00:07:53,360
where in fact most often in Locke's world and in much of the history of capitalism, the heads of households.

76
00:07:53,360 --> 00:08:01,070
And as such, they were generally men. So they were masters of wives, children, slaves or servants.

77
00:08:01,070 --> 00:08:05,960
Even in the state of nature, Locke is referring to people as having servants. This,

78
00:08:05,960 --> 00:08:10,280
I think this kind of conceptualisation illuminates many of the concepts the

79
00:08:10,280 --> 00:08:14,510
contexts within which this kind of lock in tension can be seen as operative.

80
00:08:14,510 --> 00:08:17,660
So to take a classic example, in early 19th century England,

81
00:08:17,660 --> 00:08:25,310
male handloom weavers are working with their families on the so-called domestic system, weaving at home with the assistance of family labour.

82
00:08:25,310 --> 00:08:31,490
There's great stigma attached to the new factory system, under which factory owners try to get workers initially,

83
00:08:31,490 --> 00:08:36,650
mainly women and children, to become wage labourers in large factories outside the home.

84
00:08:36,650 --> 00:08:44,780
So for a man to become a wage labourer was to lose his independence, his role as master,

85
00:08:44,780 --> 00:08:51,830
his birthright and becoming incorporated into another man's household for women and children to become incorporated wood,

86
00:08:51,830 --> 00:08:57,290
it was thought, break up the patriarchal family. One might suggest that what's being objected to here is not so much the

87
00:08:57,290 --> 00:09:02,780
accumulation of capital as of people of members of the household into another's,

88
00:09:02,780 --> 00:09:06,410
if interpreted in the older household, derive terms.

89
00:09:06,410 --> 00:09:12,650
This is what the factory system looked like and unnaturally expanded household encroaching on those of normal size.

90
00:09:12,650 --> 00:09:17,270
As it turned out, as it eventuated, a solution is reached in England and elsewhere,

91
00:09:17,270 --> 00:09:24,290
which allows wage labour in large economic units to coexist with the patriarchal family through a series of labour political struggles.

92
00:09:24,290 --> 00:09:29,390
A new norm is developed whereby a man with labour outside of the home would be paid a family wage,

93
00:09:29,390 --> 00:09:37,370
a breadwinner wage sufficient to support wife and children. A household has ceased to be a unit of production, but it remains one of consumption.

94
00:09:37,370 --> 00:09:39,320
Late wage labour gains its own dignity.

95
00:09:39,320 --> 00:09:47,510
It's not regarded anymore as degrading incorporation into another household, but as a transaction in this other sphere, the sphere of the economy.

96
00:09:47,510 --> 00:09:54,140
So another way to take another example to accumulate people besides employing wage labour is to acquire slaves.

97
00:09:54,140 --> 00:10:01,760
So part of the contest, at least in the 19th century USA over slavery, can be seen in similar terms of small and large households.

98
00:10:01,760 --> 00:10:06,110
So much of the animus against slavery amongst white people comes from the sense that the

99
00:10:06,110 --> 00:10:13,370
institution allows a few plantation owners owners to hugely enlarge their households like that,

100
00:10:13,370 --> 00:10:24,230
gaining enormous wealth as well as political influence and giving them great advantage over the other smaller households.

101
00:10:24,230 --> 00:10:30,170
So these are, you know, rural homesteads which have perhaps the the old slave or servant, but largely depends on the family,

102
00:10:30,170 --> 00:10:36,950
which could otherwise exist in the sort of lock and egalitarian horizontal relations abolition of slavery

103
00:10:36,950 --> 00:10:43,730
was supposed to operate rather like antitrust laws would later on breaking up unnaturally large units.

104
00:10:43,730 --> 00:10:49,310
In another context, again, the transition from slavery to high wage labour in the British West Indies, we see another variant.

105
00:10:49,310 --> 00:10:54,530
I'm drawing here on the work of Catherine Paul in this book and other work I've seen,

106
00:10:54,530 --> 00:10:59,510
which is in progress under slavery, especially when the Atlantic slave trade is still operating.

107
00:10:59,510 --> 00:11:05,390
Masters are generally not paying very much attention to the kinship or domestic arrangements of slaves,

108
00:11:05,390 --> 00:11:09,110
slaves and notionally incorporated into these enormous households called the

109
00:11:09,110 --> 00:11:14,570
plantations with patriarchal heads who conduct economic and political transactions.

110
00:11:14,570 --> 00:11:18,380
But within these great households, the slaves actual living arrangements remained,

111
00:11:18,380 --> 00:11:25,430
in many cases, matrimonial continuing African patterns in the transition towards free labour.

112
00:11:25,430 --> 00:11:31,430
Slaves were expected to take on the role not just of individual wage workers, but also small families,

113
00:11:31,430 --> 00:11:38,240
and therefore to follow patriarchal norms and having male heads who again took on political and economic responsibilities.

114
00:11:38,240 --> 00:11:41,990
So from that, you get again something like the Lock-In model.

115
00:11:41,990 --> 00:11:45,980
The matter of focal family recedes in favour of the patriarchal one.

116
00:11:45,980 --> 00:11:53,540
And at the same time, the sphere of the economy traumatised most comes to organise relations amongst these smaller household units.

117
00:11:53,540 --> 00:12:00,050
So this is all very quick. So far, I've been looking at transitions over time in the direction of the increasing

118
00:12:00,050 --> 00:12:07,220
importance of the economy and the decreasing importance of the household. I now want to look at the enduring condition of mixed fitness of the two,

119
00:12:07,220 --> 00:12:15,290
the household and the economy, as had spheres articulated to use an older vocabulary together.

120
00:12:15,290 --> 00:12:23,960
I will come to this later, but I will put it there for people to absorb one way of conceptualising.

121
00:12:23,960 --> 00:12:30,350
This condition of articulation comes from the area where the old pattern of economy has survived most fully, which is peasant agriculture.

122
00:12:30,350 --> 00:12:31,390
This is far from a most.

123
00:12:31,390 --> 00:12:38,650
Case even today, nor is it irrelevant to the instances of transition I've just outlined or indeed those that Andreas was just talking about,

124
00:12:38,650 --> 00:12:44,680
the demand for wage labourers to have small holdings as a reserve as something to

125
00:12:44,680 --> 00:12:49,930
fall back on is very familiar from the various stages of the history of capitalism.

126
00:12:49,930 --> 00:12:55,990
It's not always a question of wanting to withdraw from the sphere of the economy or money getting all together,

127
00:12:55,990 --> 00:13:01,000
but of having enough options to ensure a positive relationship with it instead of one of dependence.

128
00:13:01,000 --> 00:13:09,880
So to understand. Or one way of understanding this, this kind of relationship, I'm going to look at this model elaborated by Januvia van der Plug,

129
00:13:09,880 --> 00:13:16,420
an extended version of the balances proposed by Alexander Chine off in the early 20th century

130
00:13:16,420 --> 00:13:22,330
China of imbalances is supposed to be trade offs between things which are incommensurate.

131
00:13:22,330 --> 00:13:30,190
So you have quantities or qualities that are not part of a smooth, a smoothly operating economics circuit.

132
00:13:30,190 --> 00:13:36,880
And so the relationship between them is not automatic. The optimum balance has to be finely calculated between peasant farmers.

133
00:13:36,880 --> 00:13:41,890
This is one of the balances which found a plug is describing not one of the original ones of China.

134
00:13:41,890 --> 00:13:50,470
And it's a balance between commodity and non commodity circuits. The commodity circuit is external to the farm or household unit.

135
00:13:50,470 --> 00:13:54,760
This is the involvement of this unit in the wider capitalist economy, if you like,

136
00:13:54,760 --> 00:14:01,240
the non commodity circuit is here seen as internal to the farmer household here on to collapse.

137
00:14:01,240 --> 00:14:08,980
Diagram Relation A is measuring the degree of the farm households participation in the capitalist economy or its withdrawal from it.

138
00:14:08,980 --> 00:14:15,280
There's also relation be the ratio between what the farm needs to buy from this external economy and what it can sell to it.

139
00:14:15,280 --> 00:14:20,840
It's not always, as I said, in the peasants farmers interest to minimise participation in the capitalist economy.

140
00:14:20,840 --> 00:14:26,680
So to slide relation a right down to the bottom, but rather to seek an optimal relation,

141
00:14:26,680 --> 00:14:31,750
be to slide it all the way along to the right that is, to sell more than they need to buy.

142
00:14:31,750 --> 00:14:35,740
In order to do this, though, and to guard against market fluctuations, etc.,

143
00:14:35,740 --> 00:14:42,010
it is wise to maintain the ability to withdraw at least partially from the external commercial economy.

144
00:14:42,010 --> 00:14:45,430
If they don't, they will risk to one of two fates,

145
00:14:45,430 --> 00:14:51,700
either being absorbed into the commodity circuit entirely the internal workings of the farm coming to be organised in a

146
00:14:51,700 --> 00:14:58,630
capitalist way or being held in a long term state of dependence where they must sell to the market at almost any price.

147
00:14:58,630 --> 00:15:02,860
Being all the way along to the left of relation be labour,

148
00:15:02,860 --> 00:15:11,920
thus being remunerated at far lower rates in this internal household economy than it is in the external capitalist economy.

149
00:15:11,920 --> 00:15:16,750
OK, I'm now going to suggest some of the wider significance of the logic expressed by this model,

150
00:15:16,750 --> 00:15:19,780
although it is drawn from the peasant farming household.

151
00:15:19,780 --> 00:15:27,130
It may help to understand other situations of relatively prolonged symbiosis between capitalistic systems and other kind of systems.

152
00:15:27,130 --> 00:15:32,710
Whether we're thinking of a large planned economy in agricultural cooperatives or a domestic household in a capitalist society.

153
00:15:32,710 --> 00:15:38,350
So to take on the example that we heard the statement about yesterday to take the ching in the 18th century,

154
00:15:38,350 --> 00:15:43,360
they don't need very much from the outside European dominated economy. They don't need or want to buy very much.

155
00:15:43,360 --> 00:15:50,500
But Europeans do want to buy their tea. They become highly involved in the market in the market, but within with a strong position on relation,

156
00:15:50,500 --> 00:15:56,200
be towards the right or to take a nuclear family if you like under capitalism.

157
00:15:56,200 --> 00:16:02,440
This is the insight of, I think originally the wages for housework collective, the socialist feminist collective from the 1970s,

158
00:16:02,440 --> 00:16:07,360
the labour done within the house were hold largely by women is remunerated at a far lower

159
00:16:07,360 --> 00:16:11,560
rate than it would be on the external labour market because it's in this distinct sphere.

160
00:16:11,560 --> 00:16:16,360
But they have very little autonomy to move to a non commodity form of livelihood altogether,

161
00:16:16,360 --> 00:16:23,200
so they're stuck at the left hand end of relation, be quite high up on relation a and incapable of moving downwards en relation.

162
00:16:23,200 --> 00:16:30,640
And therefore withdrawing from the, well, the wage labour and the market economy to a greater extent.

163
00:16:30,640 --> 00:16:37,480
You could also imagine extending this kind of model to the interaction between the capitalist economy in the natural world.

164
00:16:37,480 --> 00:16:44,470
That is nature as a self-sustaining system that reproduces its own conditions of existence, a circular arrow,

165
00:16:44,470 --> 00:16:51,780
if you like, and the economy as an unsustainable system that reproduces itself by leeching resources from the other.

166
00:16:51,780 --> 00:16:57,610
That's something that we could go into later. How much time do I still have?

167
00:16:57,610 --> 00:17:02,800
Four minutes? Three minutes? Okay, so I have a couple of instances of an anthropological kind.

168
00:17:02,800 --> 00:17:08,650
I may only get through one of them to take very briefly.

169
00:17:08,650 --> 00:17:15,370
This study by Patricia Galloway of Choctaws in the Mississippian Shatter Zone.

170
00:17:15,370 --> 00:17:22,780
This Native American people in 17th century is conceiving of exchanges between themselves and Europeans as reciprocal,

171
00:17:22,780 --> 00:17:27,880
gift-giving between fictive kin within particular distinct spheres of exchange.

172
00:17:27,880 --> 00:17:31,420
Anthropological notion of spheres of exchange is important here Europe.

173
00:17:31,420 --> 00:17:37,000
Particularly the English say, to trade or as gifts, which are designed to grease the wheels of trade.

174
00:17:37,000 --> 00:17:48,430
The other instance is he was just mentioned actually James Ferguson, an older an older article on different spheres of economic activity in the Suta.

175
00:17:48,430 --> 00:17:54,820
Many of the men Soutine men are making a living as migrant workers in South Africa under apartheid.

176
00:17:54,820 --> 00:17:56,380
Back in the villages in the south, too,

177
00:17:56,380 --> 00:18:02,980
they are using much of the cash they get to buy cattle that very then they're then very reluctant to sell these cattle.

178
00:18:02,980 --> 00:18:06,880
Cattle act as a reserve of wealth, which is not readily available,

179
00:18:06,880 --> 00:18:13,180
so it's protected from the demands of needy dependents, as well as from if you like market forces.

180
00:18:13,180 --> 00:18:16,990
It also supports a communal network of reciprocity and exchanges.

181
00:18:16,990 --> 00:18:26,800
Cattle can be lent away and gifted and maintains a certain patriarchal family on order as well from the point of view of the external economy.

182
00:18:26,800 --> 00:18:32,470
The man's main role may be like migrant labourers. Their obsession with cattle may be an uneconomic indulgence,

183
00:18:32,470 --> 00:18:36,940
but from the point of view of the people who are imbued with what Ferguson calls the bovine mystique,

184
00:18:36,940 --> 00:18:44,500
the world of money getting might appear as simply a helpful convenience that allows them to amass a mass real wealth, which is in the form of cattle.

185
00:18:44,500 --> 00:18:45,850
So in each of these two cases,

186
00:18:45,850 --> 00:18:55,000
the two alternative interpretations of the relationship from the two sides of these different spheres could co-exist as long as

187
00:18:55,000 --> 00:19:02,050
the distinct non economic sphere can maintain its relative autonomy from the capitalist economy when it falls into dependence,

188
00:19:02,050 --> 00:19:05,230
which may be often due to the intervention of outside factors.

189
00:19:05,230 --> 00:19:11,200
Drought killing of cattle in the suitcase war writing for slaves seizure of territory In the Choctaw case,

190
00:19:11,200 --> 00:19:14,620
this becomes precarious so the world of the economy.

191
00:19:14,620 --> 00:19:23,140
The Marsalis household takes another step forward and comes to organise another layer of relations amongst people or indeed between people and nature.

192
00:19:23,140 --> 00:19:28,450
But these are the reshapes fears are still maintained, which operate according to different logics.

193
00:19:28,450 --> 00:19:35,590
To conclude very quickly, one way of conceiving the history of capitalism on a global scale is, I think,

194
00:19:35,590 --> 00:19:42,580
as a series of these articulations or symbiosis between a capitalist sphere and these other spheres,

195
00:19:42,580 --> 00:19:50,950
the trend over time is for the sphere of money getting to play an increasingly important part at evermore granular levels of life,

196
00:19:50,950 --> 00:19:58,660
both human and non-human. The autonomous units tend to get split up into smaller ones, reshaped deprived of central functions,

197
00:19:58,660 --> 00:20:02,740
ever smaller if you like divisions of labour and of livelihood.

198
00:20:02,740 --> 00:20:09,340
But if we remember the centrality of the household, even in the highly capitalistic economy, we remember what Andreas was just talking about.

199
00:20:09,340 --> 00:20:15,490
Now this process is far from complete and far from linear throughout its history.

200
00:20:15,490 --> 00:20:23,770
The economy can be seen then as having these distinct spheres human and natural, with which it was symbiotic and into which it could expand.

201
00:20:23,770 --> 00:20:26,200
It may also be that overall,

202
00:20:26,200 --> 00:20:33,370
and this is the sort of thing which Wallace was suggesting the economy could draw resources from these other spheres and offload costs onto them,

203
00:20:33,370 --> 00:20:39,910
something we might call the continued existence of primitive accumulation to refer again to undresses paper.

204
00:20:39,910 --> 00:20:46,210
We could then suggest that in the case of the natural world, at least if not of other human spheres,

205
00:20:46,210 --> 00:20:51,110
the economy itself is now coming up against a hard limit that it is incorporated so much within itself.

206
00:20:51,110 --> 00:20:55,240
There's not enough of an outside left to absorb its costs.

207
00:20:55,240 --> 00:20:59,440
Thank you very much.