Devine, James wrote:
>"The treasures captured outside Europe by undisguised looting, enslavement, and murder, floated back to the mother-country and were there turned into _capital_ ( emphasis CB) "<
I can't channel Bob today, since for some reason the ether is occluded by bad vibes. But I'd guess that he might use the metaphor that I've used before in pen-l. The destruction of the English independent peasantry and the resulting creation a large proletariat (dependent on the capitalists for survival) created an engine of growth for England. Looting from the colonies, the slave trade, etc. provided fuel for that engine at a crucial time.
The slave trade, yes, because that's a form of noncapitalist labor that nonetheless produces commodities that enter capitalist circulation - but loot? How would metals and other treasures provide fuel? Wouldn't they be more like an increase of money that doesn't emerge from an increase in productive capacity, and therefore is more likely to raise the price level than stimulate accumulation?
Doug
