Look, it’s a simple ask. Either “primitive accumulation” — when referring to ongoing processes in the present — means something very much like “plunder,” in which case let’s say “plunder.” Or else it means something relatively close to its meaning in Marx, something very much like “producing by force the conditions for full capitalism even as capitalism dialectically produces that force,” in which case I’m going to need a fairly concrete threshold after which the planet is capitalist enough — subsumed enough, dominated by the law of value enough — that it would be misleading to suggest primitive accumulation is still a broadly ongoing phenomenon (as the term never referred to individual instances of proletarianization).
To say we have reached full capitalism is not to say that every soul earns a wage through which they are exploited. Nor does it exclude the existence other, entangled processes happening all the time, most notably colonialism in its various guises. It means that the compulsions of capitalism are generalized…after which there can be no primitive accumulation, as there is no general transformation of the mode of production. So I am just asking for clarity before use of the term. At what percentage of global population who face starvation absent access to the wage or access to someone with such access do we say capitalism is planetary? At what percentage of the global population compelled to increase their productivity to survive, whether the make commodities or not? At what global percentage of humans who are market-dependent does the term “primitive accumulation” lose salience? Numbers needed.