Is There Any Point in a Critique of Harvey's Accumulation by Dispossession?

You argue that when scholars don't account for the insights of world systems theorisond, they leave enough room for primitive accumulation or expropriation in their definition of capitalism. That that leaves these anios vulnerable to believing that we no longer live under capitalism at all. And you argue that brenner has ironically converged with harvey's analysis of accumulation by dispossession having become the dominant form of capitalist accumulation. Is i good for capitalism? I mean,  they've been adequately answered by the orthodox corps of markisond and norse septimist traditions,. If you look at the italian and french tredition, which i also discuss on this page, some