Wait a minute. I have not been on e-mail all weekend so it will take time to
catch up. But if we are going to have a productive dialogue--which we have been
for the most part and can continue to have--on what we all consider a very
important set of issues, then we will have to do a few things. One is to give
one another the benefit of the doubt to the extent possible. We assume a certain
amount of familiarity with some general material, so we don't have to make one
another reinvent the wheel every sigle post. Now I think I have been giving you
(Yoshie) the benefit of the doubt and I am not asking you to give it to me
unless I have demonstrated to your satisfaction that it is deservingly
forthcoming. So I suppose you require I make the argument for the theoretical
necessity of slavery under capitalism, and until I do so you will think I am
making an "empirical" argument. Ok.
But another thing we need to do is to read one another in a generous way. And
another thing we need to do is to maintain a certain standard for logical
argument. I previously argued that East African Arab slavery was nothing like
Atlantic European Enslavement, I thought clearly expressing my view that the
fact that capitalism did not originate and develop there is a non sequiter and a
red herring. Yoshie says she agrees with me that there is no similarity and
then produces the following logical argument:
>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 explain the origins of capitalism.
Slavery & the slave trade do not >necessarily lead to capitalism, though *once*
capitalism arises, it can make use of them & >*reshape them in its image* when
wage labor, indentured servitude, etc. are not available.
I think B is a part of X and you think it is not. We both agree that A is
nothing like B. You then argue that it follows logically that since A has
nothing to do with X, that B is not necessary for X.
Of course, the problem is that after agreeing with me that the two types of
"slavery" are nothing alike, you lump them both together when you say that
"Slavery and the slave trade do not necessarily lead to capitalism."
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 convert--see
below)
Mat
-----Original Message-----
From: Yoshie Furuhashi [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.
>The structural
>relation of the European Capitalist Atlantic Enslavement Industry to
>capitalist
>production, industry, finance, generalized commodity production and capital
>accumulation, merchant capital, etc. is clearly not mirrored by what was going
>on in East Africa, the Arab World. How can capitalist plantation agriculture
>producing commodities for capitalist industry and integral to large scale
>capital accumulation be compared to slavery in the Arab World?
>
>Mat
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 explain the origins of
capitalism. Slavery & the slave trade do not necessarily lead to
capitalism, though *once* capitalism arises, it can make use of them
& *reshape them in its image* when wage labor, indentured servitude,
etc. are not available.
Well, now you are agreeing with me (& Brenner, etc.) more than Lou
might like, since in effect you are arguing that for modern chattel
slavery (= producing commodities for the capitalist world market) to
emerge, there had to be, first of all, *the existing capitalist
relations* (which must have emerged *either earlier than or
simultaneously as* modern chattel slavery) *in which it could be
incorporated*.
The question is what gave rise to the capitalist relations in which
modern chattel slavery got incorporated & transformed.
Yoshie
