Let's consider two propositions:
A. Chattel slavery and colonialism in themselves caused the
_emergence_ of capitalist social relations with their M-C-M' dynamic
(hence we can and must explain capitalism as the necessary result of
chattel slavery and colonialism).
B. Capitalism would not have _developed_ without chattel slavery and
colonialism.
The proposition A is not the same as the proposition B. One can hold
B to be true while denying A. Significantly, Eric Williams never
argues for the proposition A, since his argument is that profits from
the triangular trade & slave labor were among the main sources of
wealth converted into industrial capital fostering _the Industrial
Revolution_, the growth of which eventually caused the abolition of
West Indian slavery (as you can see from _Capitalism & Slavery_ as
well as the Russell R Menard article I posted a while ago).
Lou seems to think that unless we argue for the proposition A, we'll
end up agreeing with Eugene Genovese, Ernest Laclau, Bill Warren,
etc. & proposing the modernization theory as the solution to the
problem of the maldevelopment of the Third World. I don't think so!
Yoshie
