Why is the responsibility put on those who argue that the Enslave[ry] Industry
was a crucial part of the rise and development of capitalism as opposed to those
who want to deny this? I understand the methodological issues concerning history
being raised, but if we all agree that the only historical capitalism that we
have ever known included Enslavement and associated industry, trade, and
finance, then isn't the onus on those who want to argue that it is *not* a
necessary part of capitalism at certain early stages? I am not Robert Fogel. I
am not going to do some counter-factual exercise. Do I need to type in all the
quotes and numbers about primitive accumulation, profitability, demographics,
backward and forward intersectoral linkages, etc., related to the Enslave[ry]
Industry? What will that *prove*? After my fingertips swell and ache I will
simply be told that this does not *prove* that otherwise there would not have
developed capitalism? Please advise.
(By the way, many of Jim's comments are written in such a way as to portray my
argument as "slavery is a necessary part of capitalism everywhere and at all
times" as opposed to saying that it was a fundamental part of capitalism at
specific stage(s) in its rise and early development.)
Without in any way implying anything about those with whom I am disagreeing in
the present conversation, all of whom I consider my friends and who I believe
are sincere in their beliefs and which I don't find outrageous, I do want to ask
a sincere question. Why is it that almost all of the Williams-Rodney School are
scholars of African descent? From my past experience in so many other areas, it
always raises a flag whenever most of the voices being heard on an issue
relating to gender are women or most of the voices being heard on a specific
issue are Black (or Native American, Asian, etc.). Since I live in a white
supremacist capitalist patriarchal society, I try to pay particular attention in
these situations. Definitely I go and read what folks have to say. So I have
studied not only Williams and Rodney, but Lorenzo Greene's THE NEGRO IN COLONIAL
NEW ENGLAND 1620-1776, (1942), Du Bois of course (several works are of
relevance), Oliver Cromwell Cox (CLASS, CASTE, AND RACE--published the same year
as CAPITALISM AND SLAVERY, CAPITALISM AS A SYSTEM), David Walker, Martin
Delaney, Clive Y. Thomas, George Beckford, James Forman, Aime Cesaire,
Chinweizu, Nkrumah, Amilcar Cabral, Nyerere, George Jackson, Ngugi, Fanon, Basil
Davidson, C. L. R. James, Diop, Biko, Baraka, as well as more recent work, from
Darity's articles to the crucially important work of Ronald Bailey to Manning
Marable, Angela Davis, Rhonda Williams, and the important work on reparations,
such as Richard America's ongoing project, that includes all kinds of estimates
of a variety of kinds.
But let me also assure you that I have in no way ignored the 'mainstream'
discussions on the 'transition from feudalism to capitalism', from Marx and
Engels and the Soviet scholars to Brenner, Hilton, Sweezy, Dobb, later debates
between Resnick and Wolff and Bowles and Gintis, plus all the Wallerstein,
Frank, Amin, Hartmann, Folbre, etc. I first went to the New School because of
the courses they used to have called Socioeconomic Formations, a five course
sequence, of which I took three. Socioeconomic Formations 1 was taught by the
late David M. Gordon and I think it was his best course, better than Labor or
Econometrics. As with all his course there was a 25 page syllabus that went
through what he called THM (Traditional Historical Materialism), RHM (Revised
Historical Materialism), and R^2HM (that's R squared HM--typical Gordon--Revised
Revised Historical Materialism). I say this just to communicate that my
position is not the result of selective reading (and partly to reminisce...).
So I sincerely ask, why are so many authors who think slavery wasn't fundamental
to capitalism almost all white europeans and why are so many who think the
slave[ry] industry and trade was crucial African/Caribbean American??
Mat
