Re: 20Re: Brenner, C. L. R. Ja mes, & José Carlos Mariátegui (was Re : Brenner Redux)

[Colin Danby]

Jim D writes:

> Anyway, please don't just _assert_ that capitalism needs slaves, etc.
> Tell me the logic behind your argument.

There may be an ontological difference over what we mean when we say
capitalism -- is it an analytical category or an historical one.  Mat,
when he says:

> Enslaved labor and the slave[ry] trade were central in the rise and
> development of the only capitalism that history has known.  Any way
you cut it,
> it wasn't peripheral, it wasn't an aberration, it wasn't insulated, it
was a
> central and essential part of the capitalist mode of production.

and

 > I don't have a problem with the notion of articulation of modes of
production.

is allowing for an analytical sepration between different ways of
extracting labor, but treats "capitalism" as something historically
specific and actually-existing.  He asks us not to shut our eyes to
lived history and the fact that the actual rise of industrial capitalism
is closely linked with unfree labor.  As it is with genocide,
colonialism, and modern racism.

Now, could industrial capitalism have developed differently?  Could
capitalism manage on its own, without articulation to other modes?  Who
knows.  It's not a resolvable question, or even an interesting one.

It is a serious error to reason from the structural completeness of an
abstract model of capitalism to the notion that capitalism in the real
world is structurally complete and free-standing.  (For about the same
reason that we shouldn't reason from the awe-inspiring structural
completeness of Walrasian general equilibrium to a real world without
power.)  We should not confuse models with the things modeled.

(This is a problem Marx wrestled with -- there's a reason why _Capital_
sticks the problem of origins rather awkwardly at the end of the first
volume.  It's a problem in any kind of structuralist thought.  There's
no easy solution, but if you look at Marx's work as a whole I'd suggest
that he thought that concrete historical work and abstract analysis have
to talk to each other and push at each other's limits.  Marxism is not
just volume 1 of _Capital_.)

If capitalism is actually densely intertwined with other modes, then it
doesn't have a simple historical trajectory, and we can't assume that it
is fully-structured or possesses independent laws of motion.  This
distresses people who would prefer to do nothing but class analysis, yet
claim the high ground of social theory.

Best, Colin

Re: Capitalism as slavery and colonialism

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

Lou:

>Because everybody was out in the countryside wasting time
>and resources, the cities of France and Spain remained teeny-weeny. Well,
>anyhow, that's the story. But perhaps there's another explanation, like a
>plague that wipes out 90 percent of the population in the towns of Castile.

Is your argument that, but for the plague, Spain would have remained 
the foremost empire (vanquishing the Dutch & the British); retained & 
expanded its hegemony over the so-called New World; & been the first 
to undergo the so-called Industrial Revolution later???  If so, I'd 
recommend, for instance, _A Journal of the Plague Year_ by Daniel 
Defoe (1722), an account of the Great Plague of London in 1664-65. 
It might provide an interesting point of comparison between Spanish & 
British responses to the plague, though the significance of the 
plague in an explanation for the origins of capitalism, in my humble 
opinion, is marginal at best.

Now, it seems that we are very far from the synthesis of Maurice 
Dobbs & Paul Sweezy, Robert Brenner & Eric Williams!  What happened 
to _Capitalism & Slavery_???

Yoshie

Kostunica to release more Albanians

[Chris Burford]

Kostunica appears still to be playing for federal state but on a voluntary, 
non-coercive basis.


>Many of the 900 ethnic Albanians held in Yugoslavian prisons could be 
>freed under an amnesty for those accused of being involved in the Kosovo 
>war. New president Vojislav Kostunica is reported to be preparing to 
>propose the amnesty to the Yugoslav parliament, the Washington Post 
>reports. Mr Kostunica has already made other gestures of conciliation, 
>including the admission that Serbian and Yugoslav forces had committed 
>"crimes" during the conflict. Most of the prisoners are young men arrested 
>in Kosovo and taken back to prisons in Serbia as government forces 
>retreated from Kosovo.


>Yugoslavia's new President Vojislav Kostunica said on Tuesday that the 
>Yugoslav army should return to Kosovo when the situation allows, even as a 
>symbolic presence. He also told Macedonia's Telma television that Yugoslav 
>passions would flare if the question was raised of handing his 
>predecessor, Slobodan Milosevic, to a UN court, which has indicted him 
>over alleged Kosovo war crimes by his forces. Kostunica said the United 
>Nations resolution 1244 of 1999 provided for a presence of Serb forces in 
>Kosovo, but there are none at present. The Yugoslav troops were forced out 
>of the province by the 1999 NATO bombing campaign. "This is only a 
>symbolic presence of the army and one day, when the situation allows it, 
>the issue of the return will come up on the agenda," he said, adding it 
>would not happen soon.


[I hope BTW, no one will suggest they still belong in jail. Or if someone 
does in the name of marxism, he/she will explain how that helps workers of 
all countries to unite.]



>The new Yugoslav leader reiterated that he believed the future of the 
>federation formed from Serbia and its reluctant smaller partner Montenegro 
>should be decided through a referendum. "Yugoslavia does not have to 
>exist. But, that can not be done by any politician, any government, 
>because all governments can be changed," he said. "Only the people, 
>through a democratic referendum, can answer the question whether there 
>will be a federal state, or not."


Although no communist, Kostunica's approach, unlike that of his 
predecessor, is consistent with Lenin's remark "We fight against the 
privileges and violence of the oppressor nation, and do not in any way 
condone strivings for privileges on the part of the oppressed nation."

Perhaps marxist-influenced subscribers to this list, would consider 
concretely the relevance of Lenin's approach.

The riddle and the contradiction, which, yes, has to be analysed 
dialectically, is that, yes, Kostunica is an ally of Western finance 
capital, but the interests of working class unity coincide with those of 
western finance capital, in wanting to reduce communal violence. In that 
respect western finance capital is more progressive than small local 
nationalist finance capital, (like the brother of Thaci, with his chain of 
petrol stations, or some of Milosevic's associates.)

That of  course is very far from saying that the interests of working 
people in the Balkans are identical with those of Western finance capital.

Chris Burford

London

Thaci undermined in Kosovo

[Chris Burford]

The following report is interesting not just for the possible accuracy of 
its predictions,  but also, I suggest, because it is based on a NATO 
debriefing against Thaci, the most prominent figurehead of the Kosovan 
armed resistance to the Yugoslav federal army and the strategy of relying 
on NATO intervention.

Kosovans no doubt will reflect how much they should have trusted NATO.

Chris Burford


Hashim Thaci: "The Snake" Faces Make or Break Electoral Challenge

PRISTINA, Oct 25, 2000 -- (Agence France Presse) Hashim Thaci, who shot to 
worldwide prominence as the young face of Kosovo Albanian nationalism, this 
week faces his first electoral test and perhaps his first major setback. 
The man called "Snake" by his comrades in the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) 
built an international profile and a political movement on the back of his 
war record and hard-won success at the 1999 Rambouillet peace conference. 
But since the war, his Democratic Party of Kosovo (PDK) has suffered a 
haemorrhaging of support as the ugly and violent forces behind its polished 
facade have tarnished his image, and most experts now expect it to be 
trounced by Ibrahim Rugova's Democratic League of Kosovo (LDK) in 
Saturday's municipal election. Thaci cut his political teeth as a student 
activist at Pristina university in the early nineties, before a spell in 
Albania where he received military training. There followed periods of 
study in Germany and Switzerland when he became involved in the 
Marxist-Leninist politics of the Kosovo Albanian diaspora, before returning 
to Kosovo where he became the KLA's policy chief. His hour of glory came 
when he represented the guerrilla movement at the Rambouillet peace 
conference. Thaci had to face down both international pressure to sign up 
to any deal and the threats of hard-liners within his own camp who wanted 
nothing short of immediate independence. The deal he arrived at set the 
scene for NATO's air campaign against Yugoslavia and his strength won him 
the admiration of the U.S. foreign policy community. Now no PDK election 
leaflet is complete without a photograph of Thaci shaking hands with a 
beaming U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright or Wesley Clark, former 
NATO supreme commander in Europe. But if Thaci's party continues to wrap 
itself in the Stars and Stripes -- and warn voters that U.S. aid to their 
battered province will dry up if he loses -- many members of the 
international community have begun to distance themselves from him. 
International police investigating organized crime in Kosovo believe that 
many of the underworld's key figures are linked to former guerrillas in the 
PDK structure, and many ordinary Kosovars are angry and cynical about the 
huge wealth apparently enjoyed by Thaci's local backers. Thaci's brother 
Gani, who owns a huge chain of petrol stations in a province where fuel 
smuggling is endemic, was arrested in January with a huge stack of cash and 
illegal weapons, but never prosecuted. Another prominent backer, whom NATO 
sources suspect of being the real power behind the PDK throne, is Xhavit 
Haliti, former KLA finance chief and now owner of a business empire which 
includes Pristina's largest hotel, The Grand. The PDK could enjoy a 
comeback if enough Kosovo voters fear that the international community's 
enthusiastic welcome for new Yugoslav President Vojislav Kostunica is a 
threat to their hard-won autonomy, but the best informed sources now expect 
the party to slip back into the shadows with a lowly 20 percent of the vote 
or less. Thaci, now 32 and married with a child, is probably now too fond 
of his role as a statesman to further tar his image with a violent reaction 
to his probable defeat, but NATO military sources believe some of his 
supporters may not prove so squeamish. If they do react violently it might 
prove a disaster for their figurehead. Thaci is not himself a candidate for 
the municipal poll, but needs his party to do well as a springboard for 
Kosovo-wide elections next year, and his shot at the presidency.

Capitalism & Reproduction (was Re: sublation/subordination)

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

Tom M. writes:

>On 19 Oct 2000, at 23:02, kenneth.mackendrick@utoronto. wrote:
>>
>>  As far as I can see, sexuality is a paradox, and the demise of determinate
>>  forms of sexuality can only mean a subordination, not a sublation.
>
>Interesting watching the World [sic] Series tv commercials,  a
>couple of spots for an insurance company, one of a single mother
>out on a date who refuses an ill-timed offer of marriage (sleep with
>me now, it'll be ok, we'll get married later, whattaguy) despite her
>babysitter hassle because she is insured by John Hancock,
>another of a lesbian couple in a hospital delivering a baby with no
>worries 'cause their premiums are paid -- hey and it's very cool that
>they didn't even use the word lesbian, they just showed it, oh yeah,
>fuckin with the bible belt right in the middle of america's (2nd)
>greatest pasttime!  ...Sure... That's how the people who make
>commercials can live with themselves: they actually think they're
>doing something! Yet another spot featured a Brian Lambish
>looking gent offering an inside look at a late-night internet help-
>desk office populated by a heavily gothed pierced tatooed sexually
>ambiguous satanic phone operator, and mr. Lambish offering an
>button-down serious biz alternative (well, the real Lamb's alright,
>you know, it's just the phenotype they were using). Also there is
>that Normal, Ohio show which is an excuse for gay-bashing alibied
>as liberation, no?

Capitalism, in itself, does not "liberate" human beings, sexually or 
otherwise.  It simply introduces a new terrain of struggles, in this 
case by reorganizing the mode of reproduction while reshaping what we 
make of it.  In the process of capitalist reorganization of the mode 
of reproduction, we (in rich imperial nations) became "liberated" 
from some of the old ways (e.g., marriage for the purpose of 
producing male heirs); at the same time, we got "interpellated" into 
assuming new "identities": "heterosexual, homosexual, & bisexual."

This process of reorganization, however, is not a linear process of 
Progress.  In rich imperial nations, the innovations of reproductive 
technologies have reintroduced the sense that "infertility" is a 
"medical condition" to be "cured."  A good number of women came to 
seek this "cure," at tremendous physical & financial costs.  After 
the end of actually existing socialism, women in ex-Eastern bloc 
nations lost past gains & have been suffering from the renovated & 
intensified gendered division of labor.  Fundamentalism is 
reactionary in the true sense of the word: a mixture of the modern 
reaction against capitalist modernization & the selective 
accommodation to it.  Consider the state of Iranian women after the 
Iranian revolution against the Shah, for instance.

Yoshie

RE: Capitalism as slavery and colonialism

[Austin, Andrew]

Say, suppose that someone makes an argument that capitalist social 
relations first arose in a place called X (fill in your favorite 
nation).  Whether he is correct or not is an empirical question. 
However, regardless of whether he is empirically correct in 
attributing temporal priority to the country X, he is not thereby 
entitled to think that the country X is superior to all others.

Yoshie

Well said. Resistance to arguments finding capitalism to originate in Europe
based on the premise that any argument making such a claim automatically
makes a judgment about the cultural superiority of Europe is a weird
position. It carries in it a great irony. Its advocates do not want to
"credit" Europe with originating capitalism not because theory and evidence
say otherwise but because saying this "elevates" a region that has inflicted
much suffering on the world. Only a eurocentric view could credit Europe
with having developed capitalism. But why would having developed capitalism
be a credit to Europe? What's so chauvinistic about saddling Europe with
having created the most comprehensive system of exploitation and oppression
devised by human beings? Are we to credit Europe's conquered subjects with
having created capitalism?

Andrew Austin
Green Bay, WI

The Internet Anti-Fascist: Tuesday, 24 Oct 2000 -- 4:86 (#480)

[Paul Kneisel]

--- Support our Sponsor 
TAKE 10 MINUTES TO SAVE $150 ON INSURANCE - Connect to best
rates from thousands of agents - auto, home, life, health.
Also save on travel, new cars, lots more. New FREE service!
http://click.topica.com/Mdbz8SnrbAjwjxa/Imandi


__

 The Internet Anti-Fascist: Tuesday, 24 October 2000
  Vol. 4, Number 86 (#480)
__

Action Alerts:
Applications Available for the Bannerman Fellowship Program for
   Activists of Color
Web Sites of Interest:
CIA Activities in Chile
Book/Movie/TV Reviews:
"Holocaust on Trial" NOVA WGBH-Boston, 31 Oct 00
"Ireland's Spanish war" by Leo McAskey
"The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain" produced by the Runnymede Trust
Real Political Correctness:
Proposed Bible Course Could Violate Constitution, Florida School Board
People For The American Way, " Warned: Retiring School Board member
   urges adoption of Bible course to develop 'consciousness of God',"
   19 Oct 00
What's Worth Checking: 10 Stories

--

ACTION ALERTS:

Applications Available for the Bannerman Fellowship Program for Activists
of Color

The Bannerman Fellowship Program gives long-time activists of color
financial support in the amount of $15,000 to take sabbaticals of three
months or more. Previous Bannerman fellows have worked on a broad range of
issues, from environmental justice to immigrant rights, from political
empowerment to economic revitalization. Bannerman Fellows have the freedom
to use their sabbaticals in what- ever way they think will best re-
energize  them for the work ahead, and no product (other than a brief
report) is  required upon completion of the sabbatical. In order to be
eligible,  applicants must be an individual of color, have at least 10
years'  experience as a community activist, be committed to continuing work
for  social change, and be a resident of the United States or its
territories.  Visit the Bannerman Fellowship Web site for more information
on the program  and to download an application.

Contact:
Bannerman Fellowship Program
1627 Lancaster Street
Baltimore, MD 21231
Tel: (410) 327-6220
Fax: (501) 421-5862
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>



--

WEB SITES OF INTEREST:

CIA Activities in Chile
September 18, 2000


--

BOOK/MOVIE/TV REVIEWS:

Holocaust on Trial
http://www.pbs.org/nova/holocaust/
Program broadcast date: October 31, 2000
NOVA - WGBH Boston

The systematic slaughter of millions of Jews and others in Nazi death camps
arguably constitutes the darkest hour of the 20th century. Yet some claim
the Holocaust is a myth. "[O]ne of the most dangerous spokespersons for
Holocaust denial" (as one historian has phrased it) is the British
historian David Irving, whose libel case is the subject of the NOVA film
"Holocaust on Trial." On this Web site, NOVA Online goes behind the scenes
of this riveting film with an essay by the producer on the emotional and
intellectual hurdles he faced during the film's production. The site also
probes deeper into Nazi wrongdoings and the sometimes dangerously skewed
modern interpretations of them.

The Director's Story

"It was at times hard to take in the unimaginable tragedy that was being
quietly explored in an English courtroom." So says NOVA producer Leslie
Woodhead in this frank and deeply personal account of the making of his
film on the David Irving trial.

Timeline of Nazi Abuses

 From January 30, 1933, when Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany,
until May 7, 1945, when World War II ended with the German surrender, the
Nazis unleashed a reign of terror on Europe's Jews, Gypsies, and others.
Follow the rising crescendo of abuses on this timeline.

Results of Death-Camp Experiments: Should They Be Used?
Should modern physicians make use of the results of Nazi medical
experiments on concentration-camp inmates? In this ethical provocation,
form your own opinion about whether or not they should.

Pseudoscience Exposed (Hot Science)

To back up his claim that the Nazis used Auschwitz's gas chambers only to
fumigate corpses and not to kill anyone, reputed Holocaust denier David
Irving relied on research that many experts maintain was bad science. What,
then, is good science? Explore this feature and find out.

- - - - -

"Ireland's Spanish war" by Leo McAskey
Jim Monaghan (Sunday Life)
15 Oct 00

The Irishmen who fought in the Spanish civil war

THE VICTIMS: Refugees, many with badly injured children, fled from the
Spanish

Re: 20Re: Brenner, C. L. R. Ja mes, & José Carlos Mariátegui (was Re : Brenner Redux)

[Jim Devine]

Yoshie writes:
>No one -- including Robert Brenner & Ellen Wood -- disagrees with you
>that slavery, indentured servitude, convict labor, women's un-waged
>domestic labor, etc. have been "component parts of capitalism in
>combination with wage labor."  It seems to me self-evident that
>capitalism as a mode of production couldn't reproduce itself if wage
>labor were the only mode of labor.

Charles writes:
>CB: Yoshie, in the below, Jim Devine doesn't seem to agree with me above.

I wrote:
>Mat, this seems to be a matter of definition. To me, antebellum US slavery
>wasn't the capitalist mode of production (at least not by Marx's
>definition), even though it was dominated by capitalism within the social
>formation.
>
>That is, I've preferred the Althusserian tradition for a long time, in
>which one can talk about a capitalist social formation within which there
>was (during the early 19th century) a capitalist mode of production
>centered in Northwest Europe, the Northeast US, etc. and also other modes
>of production (especially slavery) that were dominated by capitalism within
>the broader social formation.

I don't disagree with Yoshie. If capitalism didn't have the workers who 
engage in non-capitalist production in their households (usually meaning 
women's un-waged domestic labor), there would be no production or 
reproduction of labor-power. Thus, capitalism couldn't exist (and I'm 
talking about both the concrete capitalist social formation and the 
abstract capitalist mode of production).

I also agree that >slavery, indentured servitude, convict labor, women's 
un-waged domestic labor, etc. have been "component parts of capitalism in 
combination with wage labor."< in the actual practice of capitalism. All of 
these promote capitalist accumulation in one way or another and are favored 
by important elements of the capitalist class or influential allies. 
However, I don't see why capitalism _needs_ slavery, indentured servitude, 
or convict labor all through its development. If it does, I'd like to see a 
_logical argument_ for why this is so, since merely pointing to the 
historical record doesn't prove it (since the future is always different 
from the past).

The fact that capitalism may not need slaves is suggested by the ability of 
science to develop scientific "slaves," i.e., robots. If cheap labor 
weren't so easily available these days (the "race" to the bottom), the use 
of robots would be much more common.

Anyway, please don't just _assert_ that capitalism needs slaves, etc. Tell 
me the logic behind your argument.

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

Re: Re: Re: Capitalism as slavery and colonialism

[Carrol Cox]

There is a mystery of sorts here. I can think of hardly a single contemporary
political issue on which Lou and I do not agree. But on this issue, it seems to
me, Lou cannot help but make a total horse's ass of himself, as when he says,
"Robert Brenner believed that capitalism was born in rural England in the 16th
century. Unlike any other country in the world, Merrie Old England happened
upon a more efficient and productive system of food production up to that
point: private property." If I were not well acquainted with Lou and knew it
wasn't true, I would really believe that what he needed was a high school level
course in remedial reading. This resembles the actual position of Brenner or
Yoshie or me or Jim Farmelant about as much as Al Gore's face resembles Greta
Garbo.

Come on Lou -- stop playing the clown.

Carrol

Re: pre-capitalist?

[Charles Brown]

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/24/00 06:41PM >>>


Of course, then we have to remember people like Luxembourg, who thought 
that capitalism _needed_ those "pre-capitalist" areas in order to survive. 
Might she have been right, perhaps for other reasons than the ones she stated?

(((

CB: Especially since there never has been capitalism without non-capitalist forms with 
it.

Reducing or displacing bank risk?

[Lisa & Ian Murray]

full article
http://news.findlaw.com/ap_stories/f/1310/10-25-2000/20001025000713150.html

The bill is at http://www.house.gov/banking/hr1161ar.pdf

House OKs Bill To Reduce Bank Risk

WASHINGTON (AP) _ The House passed a bill on Tuesday designed to reduce risk
to the nation's banking system should a major financial institution become
insolvent.

The measure, supported by the Clinton administration, passed by a voice
vote.

The legislation would allow a bank or investment firm in bankruptcy-court
protection and its creditors to separate out the company's losses from
derivatives trading, rather than have the trading contracts tied up in
bankruptcy proceedings.

Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, representing the administration, and
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan last Friday urged lawmakers to
approve the legislation before Congress adjourns soon for the year.

The Senate has yet to act on a similar measure.

Derivatives are complex financial instruments whose value depends on the
value or change in value of an underlying security, commodity or asset.
Businesses use them to guard against losses from unexpected market
movements. Speculators and investment funds trade them as high-risk bets,
hoping for huge returns.

``We believe that this is a rare opportunity for government to take an
important, tangible step to mitigate systemic risk and improve the integrity
of our financial system,'' Summers and Greenspan wrote in letters to House
and Senate leaders.

The measure adopted Tuesday also is included as a provision in broader
legislation rewriting the bankruptcy laws, passed by the House on Oct. 12,
that President Clinton has said he will veto. Because of the veto promise,
Summers and Greenspan had urged the leaders to adopt the provision as a
stand-alone bill.

``It would reduce the likelihood that incidents such as the near-collapse of
Long-Term Capital Management in September 1998 would pose a broader threat
to our financial system,'' they wrote.

Would a Bush presidency be even more bullish on the $

[Lisa & Ian Murray]

full article at http://www.iht.com/IHT/TODAY/THU/FPAGE/bux.2.html


Paris, Thursday, October 26, 2000
Euro Puts Central Banks to Test
Currency Is at New Low, but Few See Any Likelihood of Intervention
By Tom Buerkle International Herald Tribune

LONDON

The euro touched an all-time low of 82.48 cents, and in late trading in
New

York it was at 82.82 cents, compared with 83.72 cents late Tuesday.

The continued decline will put the European Central Bank and the central
banks of the G-7 to the test, analysts said. ''Further intervention would be
required to convince markets that the G-7 are serious,'' said Joe
Prendergast, currency strategist at Credit Suisse First Boston. ''The second
time around will not be as easy as the first. The surprise element has been
spent.''

Two major changes have occurred over the past month to reduce the prospects
of intervention, analysts said.

For one thing, the whiff of panic that pervaded financial markets in
September, and seemed to spur the central banks into action, has largely
dissipated. Oil prices have stabilized at a little over $33 a barrel, about
$3 below their September peak. Major stock markets have rallied in the past
week, even though leading U.S. indexes remain below their levels of a month
ago. And the euro's decline has been anything but a speculative stampede.

''There are more signs of stability than there were the last time they
intervened,'' said Russell Jones, currency strategist at Lehman Brothers
International. ''The price action has been pretty calm. It's been a gradual
grind downward'' for the euro, he added.

The seeming disarray among European policymakers following comments last
week by the ECB president, Wim Duisenberg, in which he cited factors arguing
against intervention, also appears to have reduced the chances that the G-7
could agree on concerted action. A reiteration of the Clinton
administration's strong-dollar policy by Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers
on Tuesday suggested that U.S. policymakers ''want to demonstrate that they
blame Europeans for the problem,'' Mr. Jones said.

Meanwhile, the fundamental factors driving the currency markets continue to
favor the dollar at the expense of the euro, analysts said.

The euro has been hit in recent days by fresh evidence that the European
economy is slowing more rapidly than that of the United States. French data
released Wednesday showed that the growth of consumer spending in the euro
zone's second-largest economy slowed significantly in the third quarter,
while the latest Ifo monthly survey of German business conditions, released
Tuesday, showed a sizable decline.

Investors also are starting to take seriously the prospect of a shift in
U.S. economic policy if George W. Bush wins the presidential election,
analysts said. Mr. Bush's tax-cut proposals have led some analysts to
envisage a repeat of the loose fiscal, tight monetary policy combination of
the Reagan years, which propelled the dollar to much higher levels in the
mid-1980s. ''The policy settings would be pretty unanimously
dollar-bullish,'' Mr. Prendergast said.

Re: Re: Capitalism as slavery and colonialism

[Louis Proyect]

>I don't know about Charles, but Lou seems to agree with Jim Blaut 
>that "historical priority = historical superiority."  

Actually this afternoon I tried to explain the issues to the unwashed and
untutored mob on the Marxism List who would generally assume that Robert
Brenner was the Philadelphia comedian who used to appear regularly on the
Johnny Carson show.

===

Since most subscribers on the Marxism list--as far as I can tell--are not
the types to read New Left Review let alone scholarly journals (I do except
Jared Israel, who is an editor of the New England Journal of Philological
Hermeneutics when he is not working on Emperor's Clothes), I should try to
put this discussion about the depopulation of Castile into some kind of
context. After all, the Brenner Thesis and the controversy it provoked is
largely the stuff of history departments and academic conferences. 

Robert Brenner believed that capitalism was born in rural England in the
16th century. Unlike any other country in the world, Merrie Old England
happened upon a more efficient and productive system of food production up
to that point: private property. The feudal aristocracy had sacrificed
political power to the central state apparatus but gained economic power
which they utilized to squeeze tenant farmers. When tenants are forced to
come up with rent, they must innovate. In all the rest of the world, there
was a resistance to innovation especially in the sleepy, superstitious
Orient where they worshipped Holy Cows rather than perfecting agronomic
techniques like the plucky and resourceful British, the inventors of cow
manure and scarecrows. This is the main explanation for the British Empire.
By happenstance the invention of private property in the countryside
created the impetus for the industrial revolution, indoor plumbing and the
poetry of Rudyard Kipling.

One of the signs that capitalism was at work in England and nowhere else
was the explosive growth of London. Once you get your act together in the
countryside, there is no need to have as many field hands or
self-sustaining farmers. You give them a bus ticket and they come to London
where they become part of the burgeoning work force. This most impressive
use of personnel was only possible in rational, efficient England.
Everywhere else in Europe there was inefficient use of land as the
aristocracy held sway, particularly in Catholic countries it seems. In
these countries the Barons did not bother to explore agronomic techniques
because they were not under economic pressure to make a profit. They were
like civil servants, especially like the people who work at the Motor
Vehicle Bureau. Because everybody was out in the countryside wasting time
and resources, the cities of France and Spain remained teeny-weeny. Well,
anyhow, that's the story. But perhaps there's another explanation, like a
plague that wipes out 90 percent of the population in the towns of Castile.

Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/

Re: Capitalism as slavery and colonialism

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

Carrol wrote:

>Charles Brown wrote:
>
>>  CB: What is the disagreement that is being discussed at length ?
>
>Charles, that is the question Louis refuses (apparently on 
>principle) to answer. Until he does answer it, I can only assume 
>that his anti-capitalism is based on mere personal feeling rather 
>than on an understanding of capitalism.
>
>We are not arguing over the importance of slavery.
>
>We are not arguing over the importance of imperialism.
>
>We are not arguing over the absolute centrality in contemporary 
>political struggle of the struggle against U.S. imperialism and 
>(within the u.s.) of the struggle against racism.
>
>We are not above all arguing over the importance of slave-grown 
>cotton  And this leads me to a consideration of one of the most 
>bizarre posts that has ever been directed to me.

I don't know about Charles, but Lou seems to agree with Jim Blaut 
that "historical priority = historical superiority."  Jim writes: "I 
try to demonstrate that our understanding of the human past will be 
much improved after we have sifted out and discarded those arguments 
and theories that falsely attribute historical superiority or 
priority to Europeans over all other peoples" (_Eight Eurocentric 
Historians_, NY: Guildord, 2000, p. xi).  While Jim uses "priority" 
and "superiority" interchangeably, I don't think they mean the same 
thing.

Say, suppose that someone makes an argument that capitalist social 
relations first arose in a place called X (fill in your favorite 
nation).  Whether he is correct or not is an empirical question. 
However, regardless of whether he is empirically correct in 
attributing temporal priority to the country X, he is not thereby 
entitled to think that the country X is superior to all others.

Yoshie

RE: Wallerstein & Post-Modernists (was Re: Wallerstein on slavery and capitalism)

[Nicole Seibert]

The subject has no action when passive voice is used.  This is not
postmodern; this is standard English 101.
-Nico

 -Original Message-
From:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]  On Behalf Of Yoshie Furuhashi
Sent:   Saturday, October 21, 2000 1:31 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:[PEN-L:3374] Wallerstein & Post-Modernists (was Re: Wallerstein on
slavery and capitalism)

Mine:

>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.

The passive voice makes the social _agents_ -- classes -- disappear,
in both the theoretical & empirical senses.  Post-modernists are very
fond of this disappearance of historical actors from theory.

Wallerstein's world systems theory is very close to post-modernism
(especially post-colonialist versions of it -- like Gayatri
Spivak's).  Hence his _After Liberalism_, etc.

>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).

Slavery existed from near the beginning of colonial North America.  A
Dutch slave trader exchanged his cargo of Africans for food in 1619
in Jamestown.  Some historians argue that the status & treatment of
the first Africans in Virginia were close to those of "indentured
servants" brought from England, etc., and the institutionalization of
chattel slavery & use of slaves for the international market began
only from the mid- to late-seventeenth century in North American
colonies; some dispute this argument and say that _from the very
beginning_ the treatment of Africans was racist and they were already
slaves, _not at all different_ from slaves in subsequent history.

*   ...By about 900 A.D., however, a regular slave-trade had
developed between the Niger River valley and the Muslims of Spain.
With Negroes brought from West Africa and Slavs from Russia, the
Spanish Muslim capital of Cordoba became one of the greatest
slave-markets in the world. With the decline of Muslim Spain, this
bulk of this trade shifted to East Africa. By this time, some peoples
of Africa had come to depend upon the slave trade, and Zanzibar had
become the great slave emporium. Wars between African tribes were not
fought to kill, but to take prisoners who could be exchanged with
Arab slave-traders for imported goods. It has been estimated that 25%
of the slaves taken out of Africa ended up in Muslim lands. Even more
important, this centuries-old trade had rooted the institution in the
African economy and had established the general pattern of that
trade
   

However, the Arab slave trade led neither to the establishment of
capitalism in the homeland of Arab traders nor the emergence of
capitalist slavery ahead of time before Europeans got around to them.

*   ... When the Portuguese began exploring the West African
coast and establishing the forts and trading posts that were
eventually taken over by the Dutch, they found that trade in spices,
gold, ivory, and other luxury goods was profitable, but that slaves
were the basis of trade and that they could have disposed of much
more of their trading goods if they accepted slaves in exchange.
Nevertheless, they did not develop this commerce, preferring to
concentrate on their original goal of gaining control of the market
in Eastern spices. Although the Spanish began entering into the slave
trade early in the sixteenth century, it was still a relatively
small-scale operation

*

The above did not yet cause the beginning of ca

Lise Vogel & Robert Brenner (was Re: Brenner, C. L. R. James, & José Carlos Mariátegui )

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

Mat:

>Labor power is a commodity under capitalism, but labor power is not "produced"
>in the same way that other commodities are.

Exactly, and in this crucial sense, the reproduction of capitalism 
depends upon un-waged labor.  Have you read Lise Vogel's "Domestic 
Labor Revisited," _Science & Society_ 64.2 (Summer 2000), pp. 
151-170?  She suggests that we re-conceptualize "necessary labor to 
incorporate the processes of reproduction of labor power," so as to 
highlight the veiled component of "necessary labor": "the unwaged 
work that contributes to the daily and long-term renewal of bearers 
of the commodity labor power and of the working class as a whole" 
(161).  Why has this component of "necessary labor" been veiled? 
Because as "in no other mode of production, daily maintenance and 
generational replacement tasks are spatially, temporally, and 
institutionally isolated from the sphere of production," Vogel says 
(161).

Re-conceptualizing "necessary labor" in this fashion allows us to 
analyze how "capitalists as a class are caught between a number of 
conflicting pressures, including: their long-term need for a labor 
force, their short-term demands for different categories of workers 
and consumers, their profit requirements, and their desire to 
maintain hegemony over a divided working class[T]hese 
contradictory pressures generate tendencies, of course, not 
preordained inevitabilities.  Such tendencies do not necessarily 
produce outcomes favorable to dominant classes, as functionalist 
interpretations would have it" (163).

The dialectical development of capitalism & modern slavery may be 
analyzed in light of "conflicting pressures" -- for instance, 
contradiction between short-term desire to increase absolute surplus 
and long-term need to revolutionize the means of production, to 
increase the productivity of labor power, & to develop by extracting 
relative surplus value.

>Enslaved labor and the slave[ry] trade were central in the rise and
>development of the only capitalism that history has known.  Any way 
>you cut it,
>it wasn't peripheral, it wasn't an aberration, it wasn't insulated, it was a
>central and essential part of the capitalist mode of production.  I have no
>problem with Jim's distinction (from Hindess and Hirst or whomever) between
>social formation and mode of production. I don't have a problem with 
>the notion
>of articulation of modes of production. But the articulation of capitalist and
>other modes of production is more relevant to what was happening in the
>colonies, for example, where the capitalist mode and domestic, Germanic,
>African, and other modes were in articulation.

Yes, but that slavery became _historically essential_ to the 
development of capitalism was _not_ a _preordained_ outcome.  It was 
_not_ inevitable.  It was a _contingent_ outcome of _class struggles 
in Europe, Africa, & the so-called New World_:

*   Having got rid of the small farmers, how was it possible for 
the merchants and planters to establish the plantation system for the 
production of sugar?  The obvious answer: by buying slaves.  Yet this 
only pushes the question back a step.  Why were slaves available to 
be used?  Before they could be bought, the slaves had to be 
'produced'; more precisely, they had to appear on the market 'as 
commodities'.  But this poses large questions, namely of the 
formation of class systems of 'production' and appropriation of 
slaves in Africa (or elsewhere).  The point here is _not_ to enter 
into the debate concerning the degree to which the formation of such 
a structure marked the emergence of a new mode of production, or 
merely the adaptation and intensification of an already existing one. 
It is to argue that _its existence should in no way be assumed_; that 
_the needs of capitalism, or capitalists, are not in themselves 
enough to explain it_ [Yoshie: Note the importance of _opposition to 
functionalism_ that both Vogel & Brenner highlight].  This is 
especially because class formation, or the intensification of 
exploitation, is generally an _outcome_ of class conflict, and this 
outcome itself needs to be accounted for.[100]

The Case of Colonial Virginia

The relevance of this question is clarified by the very great 
difficulty, if not impossibility, of enslaving the European settlers 
themselves in the colonial context.  In Virginia, for example, the 
demand for tobacco from England and Europe set in train a demand by 
planters and merchants for increased output for export, and a 
consequently increasing pressure on the direct producers to increase 
their output.  In this case, the direct producers for the planters 
and merchants were for the most part indentured servants, subject to 
work for their masters for a specified number of years before gaining 
their freedom.  In this situation, the way to ensure and increase 
output was for the planters to intensify their servants' labour, 
extend their terms of service, and clos

RE: Slavery stuff

[Forstater, Mathew]

Jim: I don't discount enslaved labor, though I don't see why it needs to be 
capitalized.

For the same reason that, while there may have been many holocausts, most of the
world uses the Holocaust to speak about one in particular.

Slavery stuff

[Jim Devine]

quoth I: >>How could slavery be "essential" to the capitalist mode of 
production?<<

Mat wrote:
>There has never been an historical capitalism that rose and developed 
>without a crucial core of Enslaved labor, and industry, finance, and 
>commerce intimately tied directly and indirectly to Enslavement, Enslaved 
>labor, and the Enslave[ry] industry.  That it plays no (or relatively 
>little) role in later stages of capitalism doesn't make a difference. 
>Looked at historically, how can we say that at earlier stages of 
>capitalism this kind of Enslave[ry] Industry was not a necessary part of 
>capitalisms origin and development? Of course wage labor is crucial; I 
>never proposed to discount it. Why do others insist on discounting 
>Enslaved labor?

I didn't say that capitalism didn't play a crucial role at the early 
stages. It's unclear -- without a lot of counter-historical speculation -- 
whether or not slavery was "necessary." To make the statement that slavery 
was necessary, you'd need a very clear theory of what capitalism is. Mere 
historical reference won't do.

I don't discount enslaved labor, though I don't see why it needs to be 
capitalized.



Said I: >>it [Spain] got a lot of loot from the New World and organized the 
forced labor of a  lot of Indians and Africans, but the surplus got 
siphoned off the promote the capitalist development of England and Holland 
(or it simply encouraged inflation, as with much or most of the looted gold).<<

Says Mat: >This sounds more monetarist than Marxist.  The reduction in 
socially necessary labor time in gold and silver production decreased the 
relative price of these precious metals to other goods--isn't that the 
Marxist explanation of the inflation, not an increase in money supply 
causes inflation?<

in this case, that's a distinction that doesn't correspond to a real 
difference. Both involve the supply of gold curve shifting rightward. What 
I said would be Monetarist if I had said that it _only_ encouraged 
inflation. Even then, I think there are good reasons why increasing the 
supply of gold money wouldn't cause much in the way of Keynesian stimulus 
in the 1500s (even though it might after that), so that a Monetarist-like 
argument might apply. Further, given the lack of sophisticated financial 
systems back then, the idea of an exogenous money supply makes a certain 
amount of sense.

---

saith I: >>I don't think anyone was conflating ancient slavery with 
antebellum Southern slavery (or Caribbean slavery). But there are some 
similarities...<<

Mat writes: >Who said "you can forget everything before the 'But'"?  This 
is one of the problems, I think. People really still want to think that 
European Capitalist Enslavement of African Peoples was anything like 
'slavery' in 'antiquity'.  We shouldn't even use the same word. These 
supposed 'similarities' are not fundamental. [none of this is directed at 
Jim personally I am just taking on the
general argument]<

why can't we talk about chattel slavery, as opposed to ancient slavery 
(which was only sometimes chattel slavery)?


Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

Re: Brenner, C. L. R. James, & José Carlos Mariátegui

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

 From Mat to Jim D.:

>This sounds more monetarist than Marxist.  The reduction in socially necessary
>labor time in gold and silver production decreased the relative price of these
>precious metals to other goods--isn't that the Marxist explanation of the
>inflation, not an increase in money supply causes inflation?

Was socially necessary labor time in gold and silver production 
reduced during the period (the rise & decline of Spain) under 
question?  How?  By how much?

Yoshie

RE: [PEN-L:3494] Re: RE: [PEN-L:3471] Re: Brenner, C. L. R. James, & José Carlos Mariátegui ( was Re : Brenner Redux)

[Forstater, Mathew]

Who said "you can forget everything before the 'But'"?  This is one of the
problems, I think. People really still want to think that European Capitalist
Enslavement of African Peoples was anything like 'slavery' in 'antiquity'.  We
shouldn't even use the same word. These supposed 'similarities' are not
fundamental. [none of this is directed at Jim personally I am just taking on the
general argument]

Mat

Jim:

I don't think anyone was conflating ancient slavery with antebellum 
Southern slavery (or Caribbean slavery). But there are some similarities

Re: Is Slavery a Mode of production?

[Michael Perelman]

The slave economy was closely integrated with the Northern economy.  To speak of the
slave economy is an abstraction.

Besides, there were many different slave economies in the US.  In the uplands, many
small farmers worked alongside their slaves.  The Cheapeake region was different
from Miss. or Texas.

It is a fascinating subject, but one that is difficult to address with absolute
confidence.

--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [PEN-L:3494] Re: RE: [PEN-L:3471] Re: Brenner, C. L. R. James, & José Carlos Mariátegui ( was Re : Brenner Redux)

[Forstater, Mathew]

This sounds more monetarist than Marxist.  The reduction in socially necessary
labor time in gold and silver production decreased the relative price of these
precious metals to other goods--isn't that the Marxist explanation of the
inflation, not an increase in money supply causes inflation?


Jim:

it [Spain]
got a lot of loot from the New World and organized the forced labor of a 
lot of Indians and Africans, but the surplus got siphoned off the promote 
the capitalist development of England and Holland (or it simply encouraged 
inflation, as with much or most of the looted gold).

RE: [PEN-L:3494] Re: RE: [PEN-L:3471] Re: Brenner, C. L. R. James, & José Carlos Mariátegui ( was Re : Brenner Redux)

[Forstater, Mathew]

There has never been an historical capitalism that rose and developed without a
crucial core of Enslaved labor, and industry, finance, and commerce intimately
tied directly and indirectly to Enslavement, Enslaved labor, and the Enslave[ry]
industry.  That it plays no (or relatively little) role in later stages of
capitalism doesn't make a difference. Looked at historically, how can we say
that at earlier stages of capitalism this kind of Enslave[ry] Industry was not a
necessary part of capitalisms origin and development? Of course wage labor is
crucial; I never proposed to discount it. Why do others insist on discounting
Enslaved labor?

Mat

Jim:

How could slavery be "essential" to the capitalist mode of production?

Re: E.Wood's defence of Brenner

[Charles Brown]

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/25/00 02:56PM >>

When Wood (and Brenner) tell us that capitalism is not commerce 
they mean it. Capitalism  did not grow naturally out of anything that 
preceded it; it is so unknown in history, so novel, exceptional and 
incomparable, that when it came, it did so "fully fledged". (Those 
who claim that Brenner was not so ignorant as to ignore  the role of 
the colonial trade are simply missing the *essence* of  his thesis.) 

((

CB: By this thesis, what explains the fact that capitalism , in fact, went on to 
establish a very big colonial system ? Was that not a necessary development ? Was that 
not the result of part of the "essence" of the novel mode ?

Re: Re: E.Wood's defence of Brenner

[Louis Proyect]

Ricardo Duchesne:
>When Wood (and Brenner) tell us that capitalism is not commerce 
>they mean it. Capitalism  did not grow naturally out of anything that 
>preceded it; it is so unknown in history, so novel, exceptional and 
>incomparable, that when it came, it did so "fully fledged". (Those 
>who claim that Brenner was not so ignorant as to ignore  the role of 
>the colonial trade are simply missing the *essence* of  his thesis.) 

True. True. What I like about Ricardo is that he is no namby-pamby and does
not beat around the bush. All this talk about the role of slavery, etc. is
utterly foreign to Wood's defense of Brenner. In fact she does not even
address the special nature of the New World "commerce". Everything for her
(and him) is defined in terms of "buying cheap and selling dear". The only
problem is that while this might apply to trade between China and the West,
it has nothing to do with what took place in the New World. There were no
established regional powers that could haggle with British traders. Well, I
take that back. There were Aztecs and Incas, but they were mostly
exterminated. Those that remained were condemned to super-exploitation in
the silver and gold mines of Peru, Mexico and Bolivia. And when that source
of wealth dried up, the accumulation of capital took up in the Brazilian
and Caribbean plantations where slaves cut cane. If this is "commerce",
then I am the nephew of Jesus Christ.

Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/

Re: E.Wood's defence of Brenner

[Ricardo Duchesne]

Careful student of Marx that he was, Dobb insisted that modern 
capitalism was a unique mode of production representing both a 
particular set of  productive forces and of class relations. The point 
was to look for that  dynamic within the feudal mode which let to 
the rise of a new mode. And Dobb was emphatic that this dynamic 
came less from new technologies than from the class struggles 
between lords and peasants. But how does one get capitalism out 
of  such a struggle? Enter the concept "petty commodity 
production". Together with Hilton, Dobb observed that within the 
feudal mode there was an embroynic peasant market, one which 
began to grow  as peasants freed themselves from  feudal 
exploitation, and which eventually resulted in peasant differentiation 
and accumulation, and capitalists ready to hire impoverished 
producers. 

In other words, Wood says, Dobb and Hilton, too, had assumed 
that within feudalism there existed already a logic of accumulation 
waiting to be released the moment peasants freed themselves from 
feudalism. And guess who understood - at least implicitly  - that 
the commercialization model was still lurking behind Dobb's class 
struggle way? Sweezy, otherwise known for his crude Pirenne-like 
idea that the growth of  international trade was the dissolver of 
feudalism, but best known as the editor of Monthly Review, the 
same journal Wood also joined as editor after  she was persuaded 
to leave NLR. This is a nice friendly gesture, which Sweezy 
probably deserves coming afterall from someone who is a also 
Marxist, a sort of rehabilitation after the relentless criticism he took 
from the young Brenner back in the mid-70s.

Indeed we are now told that Sweezy did not simply saw that 
something was still wrong in Dobb and Hilton, he also suggested 
that the producer "instead of growing from petty producer into 
merchant and capitalist, 'start[ed] out as both a merchant and an 
employer of wage-labor'", that is, he intimated that the rise of 
capitalism was not a gradual process, or something which grew out 
of feudalism once  certain barriers were removed from its path, no,  
it was something which was "launched  fully fledged" (31). 

When Wood (and Brenner) tell us that capitalism is not commerce 
they mean it. Capitalism  did not grow naturally out of anything that 
preceded it; it is so unknown in history, so novel, exceptional and 
incomparable, that when it came, it did so "fully fledged". (Those 
who claim that Brenner was not so ignorant as to ignore  the role of 
the colonial trade are simply missing the *essence* of  his thesis.) 

Re: Brenner, C. L. R. James, & José Carlos Mariátegui ( was Re : Brenner Redux)

[Charles Brown]

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/25/00 02:32PM >>>
In the literature, "peripheral" means dominated by the "core." It doesn't 
mean unimportant or an aberration. To my "Brennerite" understanding (which 
can also be seen in volume I of CAPITAL), slavery provided a crucial fuel 
for the early development of capitalism. But without the engine in place -- 
capitalist social relations of free proletarian labor, starting in the 
countryside -- that fuel would have been wasted (in terms of promoting the 
development of capitalism). 

(((

CB: How about vica-versa ?  Capitalism would have wilted on the vine in England 
without the fuel from slavery and colonialism ?

(





How could slavery be "essential" to the capitalist mode of production? The 
current incarnation of capitalism doesn't depend to any significant degree 
on slavery. It's dependent on low wages these days (and the "race to the 
bottom"), not slavery. Also, in many sectors, (technical change-based) 
relative surplus-value extraction has replaced absolute surplus-value 
extraction (based on wage-cutting, stretch-out, and speed-up). [This is not 
an absolute distinction, since technical change allows wage-cutting, 
stretch-out, and speed-up in many cases (while economic crises encourage a 
"retreat" to absolute surplus-value extraction). But technical change 
_does_ allow the cheapening of labor costs without workers necessarily losing.]

((

CB: How about a racist/colonialist division of labor is essential to capitalism, since 
it has always had one and still does  ?

(

Re: RE: [PEN-L:3471] Re: Brenner, C. L. R. James, & José Carlos Mariátegui ( was Re : Brenner Redux)

[Jim Devine]

[since Mat mentions me below, I'll leap into a dialogue between Yoshie and 
him.)

At 11:52 AM 10/25/00 -0500, you wrote:
>Labor power is a commodity under capitalism, but labor power is not 
>"produced" in the same way that other commodities are. Labor power is 
>reproduced, and special care needs to be applied to the analysis of the 
>production and reproduction of labor power, just as the value of labor 
>power is also determined differently than the value of other commodities 
>(value of historically and
>socially determined means of subsistence rather than abstract labor 
>directly applied in production, etc.).

Right. Labor-power is a "special commodity," with a foot in each of two 
camps. Externally, its production is dominated by capitalism. If people 
raise children who can't "work for a living" (i.e., work for a wage or 
salary), they're in big trouble. (The exception is for the independently 
wealthy.) Internally, the production of labor-power is clearly 
non-capitalist. People don't have kids in order to make a profit or even to 
break even (though people hope...) To the extent that families and other 
households participate in capitalism, it's as petty producers producing for 
use (C - M - C) not as capitalists (M - C - M' > M) or as not-for-profit 
agencies (M - C - M). Families and other households are _dominated by_ 
capitalism rather than being capitalist in nature.

>  ... So your [Yoshie's] example raises some of these difficult issues 
> that need to be worked out, but I don't think it really is to my point. 
> But I agree that we need to "understand the specificities of different 
> types of labor -- waged vs. un-waged, free vs. slave, domestic vs. 
> socialized, private vs. public, etc. -- under capitalism & particular 
> ways in which they are combined; the specificity of capitalism as opposed 
> to other modes of production; etc."  I absolutely agree. There is nothing 
> there that is inconsistent with what
>I am saying. Enslaved labor and the slave[ry] trade were central in the 
>rise and development of the only capitalism that history has known.  Any 
>way you cut it, it wasn't peripheral, it wasn't an aberration, it wasn't 
>insulated, it was a central and essential part of the capitalist mode of 
>production.

In the literature, "peripheral" means dominated by the "core." It doesn't 
mean unimportant or an aberration. To my "Brennerite" understanding (which 
can also be seen in volume I of CAPITAL), slavery provided a crucial fuel 
for the early development of capitalism. But without the engine in place -- 
capitalist social relations of free proletarian labor, starting in the 
countryside -- that fuel would have been wasted (in terms of promoting the 
development of capitalism). That's the point of the example of Spain: it 
got a lot of loot from the New World and organized the forced labor of a 
lot of Indians and Africans, but the surplus got siphoned off the promote 
the capitalist development of England and Holland (or it simply encouraged 
inflation, as with much or most of the looted gold).

How could slavery be "essential" to the capitalist mode of production? The 
current incarnation of capitalism doesn't depend to any significant degree 
on slavery. It's dependent on low wages these days (and the "race to the 
bottom"), not slavery. Also, in many sectors, (technical change-based) 
relative surplus-value extraction has replaced absolute surplus-value 
extraction (based on wage-cutting, stretch-out, and speed-up). [This is not 
an absolute distinction, since technical change allows wage-cutting, 
stretch-out, and speed-up in many cases (while economic crises encourage a 
"retreat" to absolute surplus-value extraction). But technical change 
_does_ allow the cheapening of labor costs without workers necessarily losing.]

>I have no problem with Jim's distinction (from Hindess and Hirst or 
>whomever) between social formation and mode of production. I don't have a 
>problem with the notion of articulation of modes of production. But the 
>articulation of capitalist and other modes of production is more relevant 
>to what was happening in the colonies, for example, where the capitalist 
>mode and domestic, Germanic, African, and other modes were in 
>articulation.  What was set up on plantations in the U.S. and Caribbean 
>was capitalist and not what Marx or Marxists called the slave mode or 
>ancient or antique mode.  It is this inability to get past this word 
>"slavery" and to conflate all historical "slaveries" into one thing that 
>is the problem. Greek or Roman slaves were not producing commodities for 
>sale in markets that operated according to a logic of capital 
>accumulation, their labor was not part of a capitalist's investment, etc.

I don't think anyone was conflating ancient slavery with antebellum 
Southern slavery (or Caribbean slavery). But there are some similarities: 
as Marx wrote, "in antiquity over-work becomes horrible only when the 
object is to ob

Re: Capitalism as slavery and colonialism

[Carrol Cox]

Charles Brown wrote:

> CB: What is the disagreement that is being discussed at length ?

Charles, that is the question Louis refuses (apparently on principle) to answer. Until 
he does answer it, I can only assume that his anti-capitalism is based on mere 
personal feeling rather than on an understanding of capitalism.

We are not arguing over the importance of slavery.

We are not arguing over the importance of imperialism.

We are not arguing over the absolute centrality in contemporary political struggle of 
the struggle against U.S. imperialism and (within the u.s.) of the struggle against 
racism.

We are not above all arguing over the importance of slave-grown cotton  And this leads 
me to a consideration of one of the most bizarre posts that has ever been directed to 
me.

Louis Proyect wrote:

> Carrol:
> [clip]
> You really should make the effort to delve into the literature for the
> [clip] I would start with Robin Blackburn's 2 volume book on
> slavery and the British Empire.
>
> ===
>
> Robin Blackburn, "The Making of New World Slavery":
> [clip-
>
> There are many interesting graphs in Blackburn's chapter, but for brevity's
> sake, I will only cite one which deals with British import of cotton,
> essential to the textile industry.

And then he proceeds to cite some statistics on British import of cotton from around 
the world, which establish the fact that slave-grown cotton was crucial to British 
capitalism. I have been at a loss as to how to reply to this, for if Lou thinks he is 
saying anything here which I have not known for decades, and which is not, in fact, 
rather central to my understanding of the modern world, then he has not read anything 
I've posted on any list in the last four years. Of course u.s. slavery was a crucial 
part of the capitalist conquest of the
world in the 19th century. Also Springfield is the capital of Illinois. One cubic foot 
of feathers weighs less than one cubic foot of lead. And the world is round. All these 
facts, as well as Blackburn's book, are equally relevant to the actual issues here.

I have never been able to understand why in reference to this cluster of issues (and 
it is a cluster of rather disparate issues, not a single issue) Lou is so unwilling to 
pay any attention at all to what other participants in the conversation are saying, 
but instead insists on proving over and over and over again what we all agree on.

My provisional hypothesis is this. My approach to this cluster is essentially 
political; Lou's approach is essentially scholastic. And some how he believes that the 
scholastic issue if propounded at sufficient length will somehow miraculously 
transmute into a political analysis.

And so, Charles, it is perceptive of you to ask, "What is the disagreement that is 
being discussed at length?" It would be useful if this were clarified before another 
100 screens of irrelevant factual material is posted. (The question needs to be 
modified: "...disagreementS that ARE.")

And as Michael Hoover recently mentioned in another connection -- the posts are too 
long. I agree with Michael that three or four screens is about maximum for an e-list 
post that has anything to say. I  read longer posts only if they are crucial enough to 
be worth printing out. I certainly won't labor to read 10k on screen.

Carrol

E.Wood's defence of Brenner

[Ricardo Duchesne]

If Weber took a step towards appreciating the "uniqueness" of 
modern capitalism - albeit in an idealistic direction  - Karl Polanyi 
was the one scholar who truly appreciated how different, how 
unusual modern capitalism was: disembedded and unconstrained 
by any social relation or norm except its own money-making logic. 
A conception which thus suggested that modern capitalism - so 
different from anything that had existed in the past - could not have 
risen out of the past, out of the logic of prior markets, but must 
have come through a massive "transformation" of society, of which 
the transformation of labor into a commodity was the key factor.

But Polanyi went no further than this. Though he understood that 
capitalism required a major transformation in the way humans had 
hitherto reproduced themselves, he continued to rely on the old 
commercialization model and its claim capitalism was the 
culmination of  the expansion of trade, new technologies, and new 
institutions which afforded greater economic opportunities.

No, the world had to wait for Maurice Dobb and his 1946 book, 
*Studies in the Development of Capitalism* to witness the first 
conscious confrontation against the perennial commercialization 
model. Dobb not only sought to show that the growth of trade was 
insufficient for the rise of capitalism, but that "in fact, trade and 
towns were not inherently inimical to feudalism at all" (29), even 
pointing to cases in which the spread of markets had resulted in 
the reinforcement of pre-capitalist relations.

RE: [PEN-L:3471] Re: Brenner, C. L. R. James, & José Carlos Mariátegui (was Re: Brenner Redux)

[Forstater, Mathew]

Labor power is a commodity under capitalism, but labor power is not "produced"
in the same way that other commodities are. Labor power is reproduced, and
special care needs to be applied to the analysis of the production and
reproduction of labor power, just as the value of labor power is also determined
differently than the value of other commodities (value of historically and
socially determined means of subsistence rather than abstract labor directly
applied in production, etc.). Many Marxists and feminists have gone some long
way to try to figure this all out.  So your example raises some of these
difficult issues that need to be worked out, but I don't think it really is to
my point. But I agree that we need to "understand the specificities of different
types of labor -- waged vs. un-waged, free vs. slave, domestic vs. socialized,
private vs. public, etc. -- under capitalism & particular ways in which they are
combined; the specificity of capitalism as opposed to other modes of production;
etc."  I absolutely agree. There is nothing there that is inconsistent with what
I am saying. Enslaved labor and the slave[ry] trade were central in the rise and
development of the only capitalism that history has known.  Any way you cut it,
it wasn't peripheral, it wasn't an aberration, it wasn't insulated, it was a
central and essential part of the capitalist mode of production.  I have no
problem with Jim's distinction (from Hindess and Hirst or whomever) between
social formation and mode of production. I don't have a problem with the notion
of articulation of modes of production. But the articulation of capitalist and
other modes of production is more relevant to what was happening in the
colonies, for example, where the capitalist mode and domestic, Germanic,
African, and other modes were in articulation.  What was set up on plantations
in the U.S. and Caribbean was capitalist and not what Marx or Marxists called
the slave mode or ancient or antique mode.  It is this inability to get past
this word "slavery" and to conflate all historical "slaveries" into one thing
that is the problem.  Greek or Roman slaves were not producing commodities for
sale in markets that operated according to a logic of capital accumulation,
their labor was not part of a capitalist's investment, etc.

Mat



-Original Message-
From: Yoshie Furuhashi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 7:20 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:3471] Re: Brenner, C. L. R. James, & José Carlos
Mariátegui (was Re: Brenner Redux)


>Labor that produces commodities that feed capital accumulation within a
>generalized system of commodity production and capital accumulation is not
>pre-capitalist, is not non-capitalist.  It is capitalist through and 
>through. It
>is perhaps the archetypal capitalism.
>
>Mat

Mat, with your definition, don't getting pregnant, bringing pregnancy 
to term, giving birth, & raising kids count as "capitalist," since 
these types of labor together produce a commodity -- labor power -- 
that produces surplus value?  I don't think, though, that your 
definition helps us to understand the specificities of different 
types of labor -- waged vs. un-waged, free vs. slave, domestic vs. 
socialized, private vs. public, etc. -- under capitalism & particular 
ways in which they are combined; the specificity of capitalism as 
opposed to other modes of production; etc.

Yoshie

20Re: Brenner, C. L. R. James, & José Carlos Mariátegui (was Re: Brenner Redux)

[Charles Brown]

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/24/00 08:41PM >>>
>CB: OK , but I don't get how this particular fact impacts the 
>question as to whether or not slavery should be analyzed as a 
>component part of capitalism in combination with wage-labor. 
>Indentured servitude might be analyzed as a component part of 
>capitalism too. As I said, capitalism would be a combination with 
>the division of labor wage-labor/slave labor/non-slave-non-wage 
>labor ( indentured servants, serfs, corvee labor). Didn't a 
>significant proportion of the surplus product of the slaves go into 
>the capitalist market?

No one -- including Robert Brenner & Ellen Wood -- disagrees with you 
that slavery, indentured servitude, convict labor, women's un-waged 
domestic labor, etc. have been "component parts of capitalism in 
combination with wage labor."  It seems to me self-evident that 
capitalism as a mode of production couldn't reproduce itself if wage 
labor were the only mode of labor.

(

CB: What is the disagreement that is being discussed at length ?

Capitalism has substantially cleared away most of the other modes of labor except 
women's unwaged (which is substantially a mode of reproductive labor, in the general 
sense, rather than productive labor, and thereby is not in as direct contradiction 
with wage-labor as the other modes of productive labor)  This is part of the notion 
that wage-labor and the non-wage-labor forms were in contradictory unity through the 
development of the first phases of capitalism, and that the struggle between them 
ended in the negation of slavery , for example.

(


>CB: Unlike the feudal residues that capitalism struggled with in its 
>beginning, the slavery that was established was not a leftover from 
>the mode of production immediately preceding capitalism. In other 
>words, the slavery that pops up here is not leftover from Roman 
>slavery.  The capitalists "artificially" grafted it onto their new 
>rising mode. It wasn't just there. It had to be recreated from 
>memories of Rome and Greece. This is another sense in which it was 
>capitalist slavery. It was reoriginated to fit in with capitalism, 
>so it was definitely shaped by the ether and the ethos of the rising 
>mode of production. It wasn't just there before capitalism and 
>shaped by the new mode. It was brought back, suddenly, in its 
>entirety by the new mode makers.  It didn't grow out of feudalism, 
>by class struggles like wage-labor relations.

You don't have to go all the way back to Roman slavery.  What of the 
"memories" of the Arab trade in African slaves?

(

CB: Yea, you are right. I was thinking that last night. 

However, slavery didn't derive from class struggles among the feudal lords, rising 
bourgeoisie and serfs in Europe the way wage-labor did. This seemed to be the point of 
one quote from Brenner. 

My point being , why does the Brenner thesis seem to be that class struggles within 
the European territory are the privileged cause of the origin of capitalism  ?  

((

The "family" was reorganized to fit capitalism, too; so were all 
social institutions that survived the demise of the world before 
capitalism.  Does it make sense, though, to call families today 
"capitalist"?  I don't object if you do, but does adding this 
adjective make for an added explanatory value?  Slavery under 
capitalism differed from slavery in the ancient & medieval worlds, so 
in the sense of emphasizing the distinction, you can say it's 
"capitalist" slavery.  For this purpose of making a distinction, 
however, the term chattel slavery does just as well, in my view.

((

CB: My point is also that capitalism was slavery, not just wage-labor, i.e. 
capitalism is wage-labor +slave/colonial/racist labor.  That's the unconventional idea 
I am pushing here, that slave/colonial/racist division are as definitional of 
capitalism as wage-labor.

Yes, I think it is pretty important to call the family of today capitalist or late 
capitalist.  One book on the articulation of the productive and reproductive modes is 
_Capitalism , the Family and Personal Life_ by Eli Zaretsky, but there are no doubt 
others. I believe one major  characteristic of the articulation is the removal of much 
productive labor from the home as compared with the immediately previous family 
structure ,creating a somewhat stunted role for women as participants in social 
productive labor. 

It might be interesting to make a thread here on how the new family form and struggles 
caused capitalism in its origin. This would be analogous to the claim that the other 
modes of labor and struggles were as critical in causing the origin of  capitalism as 
wage-labor and its struggles. 

Re: RE: what is capitalism?

[Jim Devine]

[or it should be "was the plantation slavery system 'capitalist'?" which 
depends on how one defines "capitalism." Do we follow Marx, who saw 
capitalism as a form of social relations of production involving "doubly 
free" proletarians? or do we follow the more common definition, even among 
orthodox economists, which emphasizes the role of commodity production _per 
se_? or do we follow a third definition?]

The below hardly contradicts what I said, i.e., that >one can talk about a 
capitalist social formation within which there was (during the early 19th 
century) a capitalist mode of production centered in Northwest Europe, the 
Northeast US, etc. and also other modes of production (especially slavery) 
that were dominated by capitalism within the broader social formation.<

Of course there were lots of free proletarians in the South (though for 
many of the more menial jobs they were priced out of the market by slaves). 
One of the problems that the slave-owners always had was to deal with 
potential conflicts here. Usually the strategy was to ally with the free 
proletarians, often using explicit racism. This alliance also included the 
small farmers who couldn't afford to buy slaves.

Also, it's not news to me that the enslaved did "wage labor," but except 
for a few crumbs, it was their owners who received the wages, not the 
actual producers. It wasn't proletarian wage labor that they did.

Almost everyone who's studied antebellum US South knows that the 
slave/plantation sector helped textile industrialization, though many would 
emphasize the way it helped the English textile sector's industrialization 
more than the US textile sector's. If cotton weren't so cheap -- due to the 
slave mode of production -- the textile sector would have had a harder time 
"taking off."

BTW, I think that the history of the antebellum South fits the dependency 
theory very well, as long as we don't go the way of Andre Gunder Frank, who 
sees the world as One Big Market (which is exploitative rather than 
providing the neoliberal's universal benefits). The "prosperity," the 
profitability, and the high measured productivity of the region was 
dependent on external demand, since the economy was very extroverted and 
overspecialized in the plantation crops. When the demand for cotton stopped 
growing and prices fell, the bottom fell out of the "model." Again, see 
Gavin Wright.

Mathew Forstater wrote:
>The Enslavement and what Bailey calls the "slave[ry] trade" were a lot 
>more than just the sites of actual slave-labor production.  "The 
>commercial and industrial activity related to the slave[ry] trade were 
>essential ingredients in the process of industrialization in the United 
>States, particularly in textiles" (Bailey, 1994).
>
>Ronald Bailey, "The Slave[ry] Trade and the Development of Capitalism in 
>the United States: The Textile Industry in New England," in J. Inikori and 
>S. Engerman (eds.): THE ATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE, Duke U. Press, 1992.
>
>There were capitalists and workers, capital and labor, generalized 
>commodity production and capital accumulation, capitalist markets, 
>exploitation, surplus value extraction, capitalist industry, capitalist 
>financial institutions, capitalist state institutions, etc.  Many of the 
>Enslaved also performed wage work by the way, and there was "free" wage 
>labor in the same geographic areas as
>Enslaved labor.
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Jim Devine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 5:53 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [PEN-L:3463] what is capitalism?
>
>At 05:37 PM 10/24/00 -0500, you wrote:
> >Labor that produces commodities that feed capital accumulation within a
> >generalized system of commodity production and capital accumulation is not
> >pre-capitalist, is not non-capitalist.  It is capitalist through and
> >through. It
> >is perhaps the archetypal capitalism.
> >
> >Africans Enslaved in the U.S., the Caribbean, and throughout the Americas
> >produced commodities that fed capital accumulation within a generalized 
> system
> >of commodity production and capital accumulation.
>
>Mat, this seems to be a matter of definition. To me, antebellum US slavery
>wasn't the capitalist mode of production (at least not by Marx's
>definition), even though it was dominated by capitalism within the social
>formation.
>
>That is, I've preferred the Althusserian tradition for a long time, in
>which one can talk about a capitalist social formation within which there
>was (during the early 19th century) a capitalist mode of production
>centered in Northwest Europe, the Northeast US, etc. and also other modes
>of production (especially slavery) that were dominated by capitalism within
>the broader social formation.
>
>You seem to be defining capitalism as simply commodity production and
>accumulation. I don't find that definition very useful, since among other
>things it makes the cut-off between capitalism and what preceded it even
>vaguer

RE: what is capitalism?

[Forstater, Mathew]

The Enslavement and what Bailey calls the "slave[ry] trade" were a lot more than
just the sites of actual slave-labor production.  "The commercial and industrial
activity related to the slave[ry] trade were essential ingredients in the
process of industrialization in the United States, particularly in textiles"
(Bailey, 1994).

Ronald Bailey, "The Slave[ry] Trade and the Development of Capitalism in the
United States: The Textile Industry in New England," in J. Inikori and S.
Engerman (eds.): THE ATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE, Duke U. Press, 1992.

There were capitalists and workers, capital and labor, generalized commodity
production and capital accumulation, capitalist markets, exploitation, surplus
value extraction, capitalist industry, capitalist financial institutions,
capitalist state institutions, etc.  Many of the Enslaved also performed wage
work by the way, and there was "free" wage labor in the same geographic areas as
Enslaved labor.




-Original Message-
From: Jim Devine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 5:53 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:3463] what is capitalism?


[was: Re: [PEN-L:3460] RE: [PEN-L:3457] Re: Brenner, C.  L. R. James, & 
José Carlos Mariátegui  (w as Re: Brenner Redux) ]

At 05:37 PM 10/24/00 -0500, you wrote:
>Labor that produces commodities that feed capital accumulation within a
>generalized system of commodity production and capital accumulation is not
>pre-capitalist, is not non-capitalist.  It is capitalist through and 
>through. It
>is perhaps the archetypal capitalism.
>
>Africans Enslaved in the U.S., the Caribbean, and throughout the Americas
>produced commodities that fed capital accumulation within a generalized system
>of commodity production and capital accumulation.

Mat, this seems to be a matter of definition. To me, antebellum US slavery 
wasn't the capitalist mode of production (at least not by Marx's 
definition), even though it was dominated by capitalism within the social 
formation.

That is, I've preferred the Althusserian tradition for a long time, in 
which one can talk about a capitalist social formation within which there 
was (during the early 19th century) a capitalist mode of production 
centered in Northwest Europe, the Northeast US, etc. and also other modes 
of production (especially slavery) that were dominated by capitalism within 
the broader social formation.

You seem to be defining capitalism as simply commodity production and 
accumulation. I don't find that definition very useful, since among other 
things it makes the cut-off between capitalism and what preceded it even 
vaguer and more difficult than when using what I see as Marx's definition 
of capitalism. (I see Marx's definition of the capitalist mode of 
production as involving free labor, free not only from owning the means of 
production and subsistence, but also free to move between employers when 
there isn't a high unemployment rate.) Also, to see antebellum US slavery 
as "capitalist" doesn't fit with the ways in which the slave-owners 
accumulated power versus the way in which northern capitalists did during 
the same period. (cf. Gavin Wright's book on the political economy of the 
cotton south.)

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The question of Spain

[Paul Phillips]

On 25 Oct 00, at 8:41, Jim Devine wrote:

> Some old 
> German guy once said that "capital comes dripping from head to foot, from 
> every pore, with blood and dirt." The success of England's international 
> violence helped its domestic violence bear fruit, in the form of promoting 
> capitalist development.
> 

Gee, just replace England with the USA and that old German guy 
is just as on the mark today.

Paul Phillips,
Economics,
University of Manitoba

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The question of Spain

[Jim Devine]

right. This is another thing that the dependency school types forget when 
they interpret Brenner as suggesting that England's original virtue is the 
reason for the development of full-scale capitalism there first. (I believe 
that Louis fits this view, though I can't speak for him.) England was the 
winner in the long series of mercantilist wars (including the one where 
they sank the Spanish Armada) which allowed them to grab a large piece of 
the colonial pie (which Spain and Portugal had tried to monopolize) while 
their ruling classes were quite successful at eliminating their own 
peasants as a class (enclosures, creating proletarianization). Some old 
German guy once said that "capital comes dripping from head to foot, from 
every pore, with blood and dirt." The success of England's international 
violence helped its domestic violence bear fruit, in the form of promoting 
capitalist development.

At 01:57 AM 10/26/00 +1000, you wrote:
>Spain had a lousy 17th century from the off.  It got caned at Kinsale in 
>1602 by the English, at Gibralter in 1607 by the Dutch and had to concede 
>the Indian trade to Holland in 1609.  The Dutch then sank the whole 
>Spanish East Indies fleet and pinched the Moluccas off 'em.  In 1628, the 
>Dutch captured a huge Spanish treasure fleet and effectively closed down 
>their sea routes.  In 1630 the Dutch took Pernambuco, the following year 
>most of the Spanish navy got itself submersed at the Slaak, four years 
>later the Spanish army is annihilated at Livigno, four years after that a 
>new armada is annihilated by van Tromp, a year later the Catalans revolt, 
>and a year later they're kicked out of Barcelona (and don't get back in 
>until 1652).  By the middle of the century, the English begin to kick 
>Dutch bottom, but by then Spain has been well and truly retarded by 
>decades of expensive and demoralising defeat.  By 1659, even the 
>Portuguese are taking to 'em at Elvas, and ultimately tear themselves 
>away.  The Spanish recover sufficiently over the next four decades to 
>re-enter the fray, and promptly spend the first half of the following 
>century losing a string of battles and getting themselves invaded as they 
>watch half of Europe gang up on 'em.
>
>Fair dinkum, the Spanish couldn't win a lottery for more than a century of 
>European wars and constantly got the bad end of the plethora of shifting 
>alliances that marked a pretty lousy century.  It simply didn't have the 
>diplomatic and military clout to optimise the advantages its colonial 
>holdings promised, while its often ill-fated attempts to hang on to those 
>holdings cost it more than imperialism was costing anyone else (Philips ll 
>and lll focused almost wholly on foreign conquest, investing whatever wealth
>did get by the Dutch and the Eglish to rebuild its military rather than 
>develop its domestic infrastructure).  And all the while the English and 
>the Dutch were making hay (albeit occasionally hurting each other).

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine "Segui il 
tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) 
-- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.

Slavery and colonialism as capitalism

[Charles Brown]

The following if from_The Colonial Era : A History of the American People_ by Herbert 
Aptheker (1959 International), also subtitled , " A Marxist Interpretation." 

_Europe, Africa and America_

In the first and second stages of the history of capitalism, outstanding features of 
its development were the land enclosure movement which , with other devices, resulted 
in dispersing tens of thousands of peasants; the ravishing of Africa, and the 
enslavement of much of its population; the plundering of America and the enslavement  
( in certain cases, as in present Haiti, the fairly complete annihilation) of the 
original inhabitants, and the colonizing of the Western hemisphere for more sustained 
and systematic exploitation; lastly, the subjugation of Asia with varying degrees of 
success, but with very high returns in terms of riches and power.

These developments were inter-related; the first three have the closest connection to 
the beginnings of American history. Let us briefly examine certain aspects of the 
relationship. 

The capitalist revolution was marked by the swift accumulation of fluid capital. To 
enhance the rate of profit derived from such accumulations and to develop the markets 
for the products of rising capitalist economy, overseas enterprises took on special 
consequence. While in those countries where the break from feudalism was least 
complete - as in Spain and Portugal - such colonial efforts were made directly under 
the sponsorship and control of the Crown, in other areas, as in England and Holland , 
such efforts were made via mixed forms and with varying sponsorship. Thus, in England, 
there developed Royal colonies, where the direct impact of the Crown ws present; 
Proprietary colonies , where some individual had been granted economic and political 
rights by the Crown; and Chartered colonies, where joint-stock companies had been 
granted these rights by the Crown. In the latter, the greatest degree of separation 
frm monarchical control tended to appear. 

In the joint-stock companies, groups of merchants and manufacturers invested varying 
amounts of capital and shared in the ownership They evolved from the 15th century 
Society of Merchant Adventurers, itself reflecting the transition form feudalism to 
capitalism. This Society was more local in its ventures and represented a 
significantly lower amount of capitalization but it did serve as the harbinger of the 
joint-stock companies.

Such companies first appeared in order to exploit commercial possibilities in 
northeastern Europe ( as the Muscovy company), or the Near East (as the Levant 
Cmpany), or in Africa ( as the Royal African Trading Company). From these it was but a 
step, given the opening up of the New World, to the formation of joint-stock companies 
( often with identical personnel) for the penetration and exploitation of America. 
these companies, as the LOndon Company and the Plymouth Company (taking their names 
from their home bases), armed with charters from the King, proceeded to clonize their 
properties with the purpose of profiting therefrom.

The process whereby feudalism ws destroyed resulted in the driving from the soil of 
thousands of serfs and tenants. This uprooting created fierce poverty, widespread 
unemployment, and wholesale vagbondage. These in turn produced serious social tension 
ans great danger for the rich and their state.

Capitalism'e development, however, not only produced this "excess" and dangerous 
population at home; it also opened up new worlds across the seas. In those new worlds 
- and in the 16th Century, especially in America - were to be found enormous resources 
and tremendous land surfaces. But with the enormous resources and great land areas, 
particularly in the northern part of America where England was to concentrate its 
efforts, there existed a very sparse population, and therefore an insufficient labor 
supply. Though the resources of that northern hemisphere were believed to be 
stupendous, tehy would remain potential so long as the creator of all value, labor 
power, was not available.

Hence, these two concomitants of the transition from feudalism to capitalism naturally 
complemented each other, as contemporaries pointed out. Sir Humphrey Gilbert, for 
example, half brother of Sir Walter Raleigh,and a leading soldier and explorer, wrote 
in 1574:

" We might inhabit some part of these Countryes ( in the New World) and settle there 
such needy people of our country which now trouble the commonwealth and through want 
here at home are enforced to commit outrageous offenses, whereby they are dayly 
consumed by the gallows"

The Spanish Minister to Engalnd reported in 1611 to his Monarch, who was watching 
English activities with jealous and apprehensive eyes:  "their principal reason for 
colonizing these parts is to give an outlet to so many idle, wretched people, and thus 
to prevent to dangers that might be feared of them." Thirteen years later the London 

Re: Re: Re: Re: The question of Spain

[Rob Schaap]

G'day all,

I see Wall St is having another hard time deciding whether to go with the
'don't panic' edict or 'panic first' edict ... anyway ...

Sez Jim,

> From my understanding of 17th century Spain was that it was quite well 
>equipped to take over most of the New World, looting it and enslaving (or 
>enserfing) many people. But the empire wasn't set up to turn that loot into

>capitalist development, so that they ended up importing crucial commodities

>from Holland and England, which helped those countries move toward 
>full-scale (industrial) capitalism. I'm not sure that makes the Spanish 
>empire worse or better than industrial capitalism.

Spain had a lousy 17th century from the off.  It got caned at Kinsale in
1602 by the English, at Gibralter in 1607 by the Dutch and had to concede
the Indian trade to Holland in 1609.  The Dutch then sank the whole Spanish
East Indies fleet and pinched the Moluccas off 'em.  In 1628, the Dutch
captured a huge Spanish treasure fleet and effectively closed down their sea
routes.  In 1630 the Dutch took Pernambuco, the following year most of the
Spanish navy got itself submersed at the Slaak, four years later the Spanish
army is annihilated at Livigno, four years after that a new armada is
annihilated by van Tromp, a year later the Catalans revolt, and a year later
they're kicked out of Barcelona (and don't get back in until 1652).  By the
middle of the century, the English begin to kick Dutch bottom, but by then
Spain has been well and truly retarded by decades of expensive and
demoralising defeat.  By 1659, even the Portuguese are taking to 'em at
Elvas, and ultimately tear themselves away.  The Spanish recover
sufficiently over the next four decades to re-enter the fray, and promptly
spend the first half of the following century losing a string of battles and
getting themselves invaded as they watch half of Europe gang up on 'em.

Fair dinkum, the Spanish couldn't win a lottery for more than a century of
European wars and constantly got the bad end of the plethora of shifting
alliances that marked a pretty lousy century.  It simply didn't have the
diplomatic and military clout to optimise the advantages its colonial
holdings promised, while its often ill-fated attempts to hang on to those
holdings cost it more than imperialism was costing anyone else (Philips ll
and lll focused almost wholly on foreign conquest, investing whatever wealth
did get by the Dutch and the Eglish to rebuild its military rather than
develop its domestic infrastructure).  And all the while the English and the
Dutch were making hay (albeit occasionally hurting each other).

Seems to me that whatever went wrong with Spanish aspirations had its roots
well before the 17th century.  I'm of the opinion it was down to a little
mistake made by Philip ll when he came to the throne.  Charles V had been
theologically tolerant and had made good trade and cultural intercourse
between Spain and the lowlands.  Young Phil was more of a zealot, though. 
Whilst the Spanish economy was more dependent on the Dutch than vice versa,
he started a 70-year scrap with the lowlanders, during which the Dutch,
proper little protocapitalists that they were, kept on trading with the
enemy.  Draining Valodolids coffers whilst occasionally slaughtering a
vanguard or two (and drowning the odd army).

One last though - a rather vulgar bit of cultural materialism.  The Dutch
didn't have any raw materials (shit - they hardly had any land!) - if they
were to survive as a people, they could only do it as value-adders and
middlemen.  Profit, and reinvestment of those profits, were not an option,
but a requisite.  The likes of Calvin were spawned in this hot bed of
industry and sober accumulation, and would help develop just the
theological/ideological basis the local material conditions suggested.

Cheers,
Rob.

Re: RE: E.Wood's defence of Brenner

[Ricardo Duchesne]

The passage from Wood's book which Proyect just quoted is her 
answer to this question. But I do agree - and this was in the back 
of my mind as I was writing that post -  that she misses completely 
the Williams school and its contention that  the rise of capitalism 
was a coercive act through and through. Let's be balanced, 
however, and see if we can respond to her claim that English 
agrarian relations were capitalistic *before* the colonial trade 
proper.She does have Blackburn's powerful defence of the Williams 
thesis in her mind, but thinks that, as long as she has proven that 
capitalism was already developed in England by 1500, she does 
not have to come to terms with any of the data supplied by 
Blackburn. I have yet to read B carefully, though, as you know, I 
don't think I will agree with him.  

> The view that Walter Rodney, Eric Williams, or contemporary proponents of the
> Williams-Rodney thesis such as Darity or Ronald Bailey, see capitalism in terms
> of "opportunity" as opposed to coercion, or that they are promoting a model of
> Smithian commercialism, or that they see the absence of capitalism as an
> "historic failure" is simply absurd.  Yes, her book is way too short.  But as
> long as it is legitimate scholarship to ignore most of the world and whole
> literatures that contest one's vision, then we will be able to have books on THE
> ORIGIN OF CAPITALISM of one hundred and thirty eight pages, including
> Introduction, Notes, and Index.  As Ronald Bailey has put it: "Out of Sight, Out
> of Mind."
> 
> Ronald Bailey, ""Out of Sight, Out of Mind": The Struggle of African American
> Intellectuals Against the Invisibility of the Slave[ry] Trade in World Economic
> History" in T. Boston (ed.): A DIFFERENT VISION, VOLUME 2: RACE AND PUBLIC
> POLICY, London: Routledge, 1997.
> 

Re: The question of Spain

[Louis Proyect]

>The exodus to the towns gradually transformed Castile into a land of 
>deserted villages, with tragic consequences for the country's 
>agrarian development. 

This passage omits the predominant demographic feature of Castile during
this period, namely depopulation because of the plague. It was the most
serious occurrence since the time of the Black Death. There was up to a
917.5 percent increase in the mortality rate in the major towns, according
to Vincente Moreda. (Plague and its Consequences, in Thompson-Casalilla)
I'll have more to say...

Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/

Re: trade pact with Jordon

[Nathan Newman]

- Original Message -
From: "Michael Perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


>Do any of you know about the trade pact with Jordon?  The NY Times says
>that labor approved.

Well, the accord apparently includes a guarantee by Jordan to respect the
core ILO labor protections of the right to organize along with some
environmental standards - the first time any trade agreement has included
substantive labor and environmental standards.  It is a pretty big
ideological shift from past trade pacts and a result no doubt of the
Seattle-DC-Prague pressures of activists.

Upholding ILO organizing principles is exactly the demand of the ICFTU
globally for trade pacts, since the focus is then on the right of workers in
any country to make their own demands for labor standards, rather than on
the US making substantive wage or cost demands that could be a form of
quasi-protectionism.

-- Nathan Newman