Why Unfree Labour is Not 'So-Called

The Fictions of Jairus Banaji

Dados Bibliográficos

ID2158115
AutoresTom Bra (0000-0002-8565-2416, autor correspondente), Tom Brass
Ano2003
Volume31
Fascículo1
Páginas101-136
Data de publicação2003-10-01
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessNão
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoThe Journal of Peasant Studies (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 0306-6150 • E-ISSN: 1743-9361
EditoraInforma UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/0306615031000169143
OpenAlexW2052259159
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas33

In a recent critique of the deproletarianization thesis, which links the reproduction of unfree labour mainly - but not only - in Third World agriculture to class struggle prosecuted by capitalist producers, Banaji maintains in effect that there is no such thing as unfree labour. Equating the latter with nineteenth-century liberal ideas about freedom as consent, he conceptualizes all historical working arrangements simply as 'disguised' wage-labour that is free, a theoretically problematic claim first made during the Indian mode of production debate. Such a view, it is argued here, ignores the fact that unfree workers get paid and also appear in the labour market, but not as sellers of their own commodity. Moreover, by abolishing the free/unfree labour distinction, and adopting instead the view that all rural workers are simply 'disguised' hired labourers who are contractually 'free', Banaji aligns himself with anti-Marxist theory in general, and neoclassical economic historiography in particular

Economics · Labour economics · Political science · Sociology · Political Economy and Marxism