I can only answer briefly. I confess that I have not had time to even read all the posts on the subject.
James is formally correct that Marx used the German term to translate Adam Smith's "original accumulation" which was later retranslated back into English as primitive accumulation.
James also formally correct to say that Marx was very restrictive in using the expression primitive accumulation when dealing with the contemporary world. He did not mention why Marx did so.
Marx was concerned that people not interpret capitalism in terms of what is fair or just -- at least in the normal way that people would use such categories. Instead, he wanted to emphasize that exploitation exists in the capitalist system when employers pay people what they are worth, because such transactions leave a surplus value for the capitalist. I was pretty clear about this in my book.
Even so, I cannot believe that he would not understand the similarities between the primitive accumulation of the enclosure movement and the theft of property in a Chinese village today. I, along with David Harvey and others, have extended the notion of primitive accumulation to indicate that considerable wealth transfers occur outside of the "voluntary" transactions of the market system. I never claimed that Marx would necessarily approve of my broadening of his category, although I think that it is in the spirit of his discussion of primitive accumulation.
Although I do not agree with James, he did provide a useful service in stimulating an interesting discussion that I will read in more detail after finals.
-- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu michaelperelman.wordpress.com