Louis Proyect said on 10/28/00 12:42 PM
>LP: This is not about overlooking. As I have already stated
>on three different occasions, the problem is how slavery
>is viewed theoretically. Brenner and Wood break with the
>Eric Williams analysis. The paucity of references to slavery
>in her book is not even the main problem. It is her messed
>up theory which puts the slave trade on the same footing
>as trading Chinese silks for Ethiopian zebra hides, etc. It
>is called "commerce" which is NONCAPITALIST in nature. That
>being said, it is grotesque to not even spend more than a
>sentence ruling the Williams approach as invalid.
What about in non-capitalist cultures? Like huntergather intertribal
warfare where slaves are taken? Do you define slavery by (the name of)
the culture that contains that activity? Or is slavery a continuous
evolving thread of human activity that deserves consideration in that
sense? And wages are part of the evolution of slavery?
