9:31 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:3538] Re: RE: Capitalism as slavery and colonialism
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/31/00 11:52AM
At 09:45 AM 10/31/00 -0600, you wrote:
Enslavement was no longer (historically!) necessary for fulfilling
conditions of
capitalism's existence and reproduction, however.
I figured out why I reacted viscerally to the phrase "Enslavement was
historically
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/01/00 04:03AM
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/31/00 11:52AM
At 09:45 AM 10/31/00 -0600, you wrote:
Enslavement was no longer (historically!) necessary for fulfilling
conditions of
capitalism's existence and reproduction, however.
I figured out why I reacted viscerally to the
Jim:
Mat wrote:
Did I ever say that "slavery was necessary for capitalism"? I may have
said it was *historically necessary*, which is not the same thing (and is
also not "empiricism").
What is meant by "historically necessary"? I know what "necessary" means
(as in oxygen being necessary to
oshie Furuhashi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 5:16 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:3748] Re: Capitalism as slavery and colonialism
Mat:
Did I ever say that "slavery was necessary for capitalism"? I may
have said it
was *historically ne
e inspired her who
shall remain nameless.
Mat
-Original Message-
From: Yoshie Furuhashi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 6:41 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:3751] Re: Capitalism as slavery and colonialism
Mat:
Of course, the problem is that afte
At 09:45 AM 10/31/00 -0600, you wrote:
Enslavement was no longer (historically!) necessary for fulfilling
conditions of
capitalism's existence and reproduction, however.
I figured out why I reacted viscerally to the phrase "Enslavement was
historically necessary to capitalism." A lot of
i [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2000 5:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:3657] Re: Capitalism as slavery and colonialism
I deny that the Arab slavery and slave trade in the 10th c. was anything like
the European Atlantic Capitalist Enslavement from the mid-15th c.
Yoshie, have you been "saved" by the Brenner analysis or something?
(If the answer to the last question is "no" then Yoshie will know I am doing
some friendly teasing, because either she knew I was not making the
argument as
she portrayed it, or she missed it in her zealousness to win a
Did I ever say that "slavery was necessary for capitalism"? I may have said it
was *historically necessary*, which is not the same thing (and is also not
"empiricism"). What I have been arguing from the beginning is that the
Enslavement Industry and Trade was part of capitalism, and not some
The question of capitalism and slavery may be addressed in a number of ways.
1) One may develop the notion of a racial formation, that is not reducible to
capitalism, but yet is interwoven with it, so that the Enslavement was just one
historical incarnation in the development of capitalism and
Mat wrote:
Did I ever say that "slavery was necessary for capitalism"? I may have
said it was *historically necessary*, which is not the same thing (and is
also not "empiricism").
What is meant by "historically necessary"? I know what "necessary" means
(as in oxygen being necessary to fire).
Mat:
Did I ever say that "slavery was necessary for capitalism"? I may
have said it
was *historically necessary*, which is not the same thing (and is also not
"empiricism"). What I have been arguing from the beginning is that the
Enslavement Industry and Trade was part of capitalism, and not
Jim Devine:
it's important to realize that for Marx, agrarian capitalism can be
"industrial capitalism."
This is not what Brenner and Woods were talking about. Capitalism existed
in the English countryside in the 15th century, not some kind of preview of
coming attractions. If you can find
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/27/00 06:31PM
I deny it also (as you can see from my post). The Arab slave trade
in the 10th century, extensive as it was, *neither was capitalist nor
gave rise to capitalism*. So it follows logically that the existence
of slavery and the slave trade _alone_ cannot
Jim Devine:
it's important to realize that for Marx, agrarian capitalism can be
"industrial capitalism."
This is not what Brenner and Woods were talking about. Capitalism existed
in the English countryside in the 15th century, not some kind of preview of
coming attractions. If you can find
Yoshie:
At most, the only thing you can say from Ellen Wood's remarks on the
English countryside is that, there, the _process_ of the
expropriation of direct producers -- _transformation of social
property relations_ -- _began_ in the late fifteenth century: the
beginning of the drawn-out
I deny that the Arab slavery and slave trade in the 10th c. was anything like
the European Atlantic Capitalist Enslavement from the mid-15th c. The structural
relation of the European Capitalist Atlantic Enslavement Industry to capitalist
production, industry, finance, generalized commodity
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/27/00 12:39AM
The only thing you need to do in order to accept this synthesis is to
regard the _process_ of social property transformation in England
the simultaneous _transformation_ of the nature of the slave trade
slavery as _dialectical twins_: the two sides of
At 07:37 AM 10/27/00 -0400, you wrote:
Jim Devine:
it's important to realize that for Marx, agrarian capitalism can be
"industrial capitalism."
This is not what Brenner and Woods were talking about. Capitalism existed
in the English countryside in the 15th century, not some kind of preview of
At 09:48 AM 10/27/00 -0500, you wrote:
I deny that the Arab slavery and slave trade in the 10th c. was anything
like the European Atlantic Capitalist Enslavement from the mid-15th c. The
structural relation of the European Capitalist Atlantic Enslavement
Industry to capitalist production,
This is not what Brenner and Woods were talking about. Capitalism existed
in the English countryside in the 15th century, not some kind of preview of
coming attractions. If you can find anything in Marx that remotely
resembles the analysis in Woods' book, I'll eat a dead dog's *.
I really don't understand the point of all this. Is Ellen Wood an
insufficient enemy of capitalism because her book doesn't meet some
sort of content quota? How does all this really matter? Maybe it
does; I'm all ears.
Doug
I deny that the Arab slavery and slave trade in the 10th c. was anything like
the European Atlantic Capitalist Enslavement from the mid-15th c.
The structural
relation of the European Capitalist Atlantic Enslavement Industry to
capitalist
production, industry, finance, generalized commodity
Net migration (c. 1820)
African European
British W. Indies 1,600,000 210,000
French, 2,235,000 254,000
Danish,
Dutch
W. Indies
Brazil 2,942,000 500,000
Spanish America 1,072,000 750,000
(excluding
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/26/00 11:29PM
At 09:27 PM 10/26/2000 -0400, you wrote:
Economists have termed this dilemma a 'high-level equilibrium trap'. The
inputs and outputs of the early modern agrarian system had reached a
balance that could be broken only be heavy capital investment and new
Listen Mr. Grouchy, it is not a matter of Ellen Meiksins Wood meeting a content
quota. She wrote a book called "The Origin of Capitalism", it is published by
Monthly Review, it enters into a debate that has a long history in Marxist
thought, and raises issues that are at the very heart of Marxist
Forstater, Mathew wrote:
Listen Mr. Grouchy, it is not a matter of Ellen Meiksins Wood
meeting a content
quota. She wrote a book called "The Origin of Capitalism", it is published by
Monthly Review, it enters into a debate that has a long history in Marxist
thought, and raises issues that are
Lou:
Louis,
But this is what troubles me about all this: isn't the argument you are
advancing an ideological reason to be opposed to the thesis at hand rather
than a social scientific one? Are we to dismiss arguments because of the way
they are used by modernization theorists?
Andrew
I
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
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
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?
At 11:31 AM 10/26/00 -0400, you wrote:
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
Who are these academic Mensheviks?
Please, I don't want to get suspended from PEN-L again. I am afraid that
Michael has some kind of 3-strike rule.
Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
These questions would have more punch if we weren't dealing with an
widespread academic Menshevik milieu which views capitalism as being a step
up in the evolutionary ladder.
Who are these academic Mensheviks?
thank god all of you swine have finally been exposed.
Benny from the Bronx
Louis,
But this is what troubles me about all this: isn't the argument you are
advancing an ideological reason to be opposed to the thesis at hand rather
than a social scientific one? Are we to dismiss arguments because of the way
they are used by modernization theorists?
Andrew
e source of any kind of "bragging rights."
Mat
-Original Message-
From: Austin, Andrew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 10:08 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: [PEN-L:3521] RE: Capitalism as slavery and colonialism
Say, suppose that someone makes an a
Louis,
But this is what troubles me about all this: isn't the argument you are
advancing an ideological reason to be opposed to the thesis at hand rather
than a social scientific one? Are we to dismiss arguments because of the way
they are used by modernization theorists?
Andrew
I argue
Louis,
But this is what troubles me about all this: isn't the argument you are
advancing an ideological reason to be opposed to the thesis at hand rather
than a social scientific one? Are we to dismiss arguments because of the way
they are used by modernization theorists?
Andrew
you must be
Louis Proyect wrote:
These questions would have more punch if we weren't dealing with an
widespread academic Menshevik milieu which views capitalism as being a step
up in the evolutionary ladder. The reason that the Brenner thesis was so
widely accepted by such circles, and by "modernization"
How is this different from working as a computer programmer at an
elite university and living in publicly subsidized housing in a posh
neighborhood in Manhattan?
Doug
There wouldn't be if I was going around telling people that capitalism
might not be so bad, after all. Or that I was
-Original Message-
From: Louis Proyect [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2000 12:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RE: RE: Capitalism as slavery and colonialism
I argue against the proposition that capitalism arose in England purely as
a consequence
I don't believe capitalism arose in England purely as a consequence of
internal factors either. But are we talking about the same thing?
Andrew Austin
Green Bay, WI
No, I think you are engaged in a debate with Jim Blaut who is not on this
list, but on the Marxism list--and who is too ill to
But the most serious long-term consequences of the plague may have
been psychological rather than economic. Already, before it was
struck by the plague, Castile was weary and depressed. The failures
in France and the Netherlands, the sack of Cadiz by the English, and
the King's request for a
Louis,
No, I think you are engaged in a debate with Jim Blaut who is not on this
list, but on the Marxism list--and who is too ill to have a debate, I may
add.
I did not know Jim was ill. However, I was responding to a comment by Yoshie
that referenced this debate. I thought Yoshie's point was
I did not know Jim was ill. However, I was responding to a comment by Yoshie
that referenced this debate. I thought Yoshie's point was an excellent one.
There is a ideological need to resist certain conclusions. I was simply
asking you if you thought this was the case.
Andrew Austin
Green Bay,
The view that the emergence of capitalist social relations _cannot_
be explained by the growth of commerce trade, slavery
colonialism, and/or neo-Malthusian factors _alone_ is _not_ the same
as a "proposition that capitalism arose in England purely as a
consequence of internal factors
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/25/00 11:08PM
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
Mat wrote:
Let's be very clear. I have stated previously that not only do I reject the
equating of temporal priority with "superiority" I also do not accept
arguments
that capitalism was developing in other areas of the world. More importantly,
Williams-Rodney and contemporary proponents of
-Original Message-
From: Louis Proyect [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2000 2:51 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RE: Capitalism as slavery and colonialism
"I am interested in how Marxist intellectuals can write 120 page books on
the origins of capit
Lou:
How is this different from working as a computer programmer at an
elite university and living in publicly subsidized housing in a posh
neighborhood in Manhattan?
Doug
There wouldn't be if I was going around telling people that capitalism
might not be so bad, after all. Or that I was
No one -- including Brenner Wood -- says that the rise of
capitalism _preceded_ colonialism and slavery -- the conquest of the
so-called New World began in 1492, and the drawn-out process of class
conflicts class formations that Wood, Brenner, etc. discuss
occurred, _not in the style of
At 09:27 PM 10/26/2000 -0400, you wrote:
Economists have termed this dilemma a 'high-level equilibrium trap'. The
inputs and outputs of the early modern agrarian system had reached a
balance that could be broken only be heavy capital investment and new
technology, and European agriculture
Louis wrote:
Agrarian capitalism evolved in the 15th century. It is not industrial
capitalism but it is capitalism nonetheless.
it's important to realize that for Marx, agrarian capitalism can be
"industrial capitalism." At beginning of chapter 31 of volume I of CAPITAL,
Marx refers to the
Lou writes:
This thing called agrarian capitalism preceded industrial capitalism by
CENTURIES. It also preceded colonialism and slavery. It was a product of
the decline of feudalism in England of the late 15th century, as Brenner
himself made clear. It precedes the "discovery" of America. It
But the most serious long-term consequences of the plague may have
been psychological rather than economic. Already, before it was
struck by the plague, Castile was weary and depressed. The failures
in France and the Netherlands, the sack of Cadiz by the English, and
the King's request for a
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
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
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
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
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
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
62 matches
Mail list logo
