Re: Wallerstein on slavery and capitalism

[Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx <xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:

> >The only thing that Wallerstein offers above, by way of
> >"explanation," is that coerced or semi-coerced wage labor or corvee
> >labor was "needed," _so_ it was reintroduced in some parts (though
> >not other parts) of Europe (note the passive voice in Wallerstein's
> >theory), just as "the use of slave labor in large scale plantations
> for almost the same reasons in the US."

I wonder what your *explanation* of slavery is  though  besides your playing 
with
words here. Who cares about the "passive voice" of the sentence above? Only
post-modernists on LBO, I guess. Let's get to the heart of the issue here.  Did
slave labor exist in the United States or not? If so, what form and why?  Was 
it is
benefiting the interests of capitalists  or not? Was slavery a capitalistic
institution" or not (Yes it was. Plantations were larger scale enterprises
producing cash crops for exports to the core, which in return benefited the 
pockets
of slave owners). More importantly,  was the imposition of slavery in  the South
parallel to developments elsewhere in the core of the capitalist world system?  
YES
IT WAS. Even in the HEYDAY of industrial revolution (1760-1830), slavery did 
*not*
disappear. British imperialism abandoned its strategy of exporting slave labor 
from
*West Africa* due to increasing competition from other European capitalist 
powers
for slave producers. What it  did  IN PLACE  was the encouragement of  slavery
"outside its own supply zones (such as the US South and Brazil" (W p. 216).



>
>  And it
> doesn't explain the difference between the U.S. South and the U.S. West

> >Moreover, this is the sort of "just so" stories (which imply
> >that the growth of the market & trade automatically brought about
> >capitalism & the international division of labor) that Robert Brenner
> >has criticized as neo-Smithian.
>

Palavra!! Brenner (who is himself a closet Smithian) calls his opponents 
Smithian
when he can not deal with arguments in a logical way. Brenner says very little
about the role of slavery in *European* capitalist development (extraction of
surplus labor areas outside the Europe) . He evidently deserves less credit than
Wallerstein here. Read Blaut's criticism of Brenner since you seem to have
benefitted nothing. Sad.  W does not argue that the "growth of the market
*automatically* brought about capitalism'. where does he say "AUTOMATICALLY" ? 
Can
you show me where Brenner finds wishy washy evidence for his labeling 
"automatic"
from Wallerstein's writings?  "In debate, one should paraphrase accurately or 
cite
directly" (as you say).  Either Brenner or you need to work on  your 
comprehension
and writing skills..

In a capitalist system,  economic expansion of the market  is the same with the
logic of capitalism as a mode of production, so they are not separate 
developments
as you tend to see.  Essential feature of a capitalist word economy "is 
production
for sale in a market in which the  object is to realize the maximum profit.in 
such
a system, production is constantly expanded as long as further production is
profitable, and men constantly innovate new ways of producing things that will
expand the profit margin. The neo-classical economists tried to argue that such
production for the market was somehow the natural state of man. But the combined
writings of the anthropologists and the Marxist left few in doubt that such a 
mode
of production (these days called capitalism) was only one of several possible
modes" (W, p15).


>
> >Carrol Cox wrote:
> >
> > > Louis Proyect wrote:
> > > > the notion that the profits of the
> > > > >slave trade were crucial to England's industrialization,
> >
> >Cox replied:
> >
> > > >A core
> > > >point is that *nations* do not make profits or accrue losses
> >-- >individuals,
> > > >firms, groups, etc. do.
> >
> >If not, there is no point to discuss colonialism (one nation profiting from
> >another nation).
>
>
> > Thinking only in terms of the core
> >and the periphery ignores class struggles.
>

I did not think of terms of core and periphery only.  Cox said that
" nations do not make profits, individuals do".  This, for example, implies 
that US
does not make profit, but the US capitalist class or capitalists individually. 
One
can not make such an idealistic separation. As an  AN IMPERIALIST NATION, US 
acts
in the interests of its own ruling classes.Business buys the state. The state 
acts
as the political committee of the capitalist class in return. Accordingly,  US& 
US
ruling classes are both responsible for  imperializing the rest of the world and
subjugating nations to their own interests (by allying with ruling classes 
similar
to their interests OR  getting rid  of  anti-US regimes such as Milo ). If you
don't look at core-periphery relations  in that light, you  let the US 
imperialism
of the hook. Imperialism is a *matter of nations exploiting other nations* (in
addition to class struggle).  That is why we opt for anti-imperialist national 
self
determination.  Period.







>
> Yoshie

--

Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx
PhD Student
Department of Political Science
SUNY at Albany
Nelson A. Rockefeller College
135 Western Ave.; Milne 102
Albany, NY 12222


_______________________________________________
Why pay for something you could get for free?
NetZero provides FREE Internet Access and Email
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html