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 other mode
of production (what Marx called the slave mode or ancient society or antiquity).
To say that it was "historically necessary" means that certain conditions of
reproduction and conditions of existence of the capitalist mode of production
were met historically by the Enslavement Industry, but that they *might* have
been met in other ways (maybe, maybe not), but they weren't, AND that these
conditions were not comprehensively met in their entirety by other institutions.
So we can imagine the possibility that capitalism might have been able to get up
and going through another set of institutions and circumstances, although we
will never know for sure, but the Enslavement Industry served these purposes in
historical capitalism--this is what I meant when I said that it wasn't
peripheral, marginal, etc. And it certainly was not in contradiction with
capitalism.
Methodological aside: this is neither empiricism or functionalism. Taking
history seriously is not empiricism, and recognizing that institutions serve
functions is not functionalism.
Mat
