the standard bourgeois story devised by Locke and Smith was that: “long, long ago there was two sorts of people; one, the diligent, intelligent and above all frugal elite; the other; lazy rascals, spending their substance, and more, in riotous living… the former sort accumulated wealth, and the latter sort finally had nothing to sell except their own skins. And from this original sin dates poverty of the great majority who, despite all their labour, have up to now nothing to sell but themselves, and the wealth of the few that increases constantly, although they have long ceased to work.(873)” This standard story depicts the transition from feudalism to capitalism as gradual and peaceful. But “in actual history,” Marx argues, it was anything but: “It is a notorious fact that conquest, enslavement, robbery, murder, in short, force, play the greatest part. In the tender annals of political economy, the idyllic reigns from time immemorial. Right and ‘labour’ were from the beginning of time the sole means of enrichment, ‘this year’ of course always excepted.(874)” This is so, because the process “which creates the capital-relation can be nothing other than the process which divorces the worker from the ownership of the conditions of his own labor; it is a process which operates two transformations, whereby the social means of subsistence and production are turned into capital, and the immediate producers are turned into wage-labourers. So-called primitive accumulation, therefore, is nothing else than the historical process of divorcing the producer from the means of production. It appears as ‘primitive’ because it forms the pre-history of capital, and of the mode of production corresponding to capital.”(874-5) As a matter of historical fact, the history of primitive accumulation “is anything but idyllic” (874). It “is written in the annals of mankind in letters of blood and fire” (875)