Re: [Marxism] Re Pomeranz

["rrubinelli" <rrubinelli@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Interesting and interestinger.. the  list has gone through this several
times, and each time at a very high level of discussion-- with important
elucidations made by both, or all three or four, sides.  Generally we
wind up repeating ourselves after the 4th or 5th round of submissions
and we call a halt. Still, it's a great topic and generates really great
light along with the heat.

As for the surplus transfer theory--RM is right: nobody, IMO, is better
at it (and still, IMO again, dead wrong) than Dr. Eric F. Williams in
his  <Capitalism and Slavery> (one of the greatest, and IMO again again,
mistaken works on this issue ever ever ever) and again in his <From
Columbus to Castro>.

rr
----- Original Message -----
From: "robert montgomery" <ilyenkova@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 1:45 PM
Subject: [Marxism] Re Pomeranz
. I'm still a fan of the Williams thesis on the significance of
the transfer of slave produced surplus from the colonial sugar isles as
a
key impetus to the accumulation of industrial capital in England.
Especially, the direct link between the holders of this wealth and the
development of Watt's steam engine. Also, the whole Triangle Trade nexus
transferred more than just surplus capital and cotton from the sugar
isles.
With the power of the British fleet behind it, the mercantilist
transAtlantic system transferred commodity wealth like tobacco, timber,
pitch, cordage etc. And of course there was the trade in slaves.
Abundant
coal??
Bob Montgomery
________________________________________________


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism