I have problems with the idea that we have to choose between emphasizing imperial extraction or domestic surplus extraction. I think both were very important.
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 09:19:49PM -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: > Devine wrote: > >what's the point here? it can't be that Brenner somehow agrees with Locke, > >since that's not true. > > > >As for Locke, he was an addle-headed apologist: on the one hand, he > >asserted that if you mix your labor with something and create a product, > >it's your property. But then it turns out that if your servants work for > >you, the product is still your property. It's no surprise that he > >supported slavery in some contexts. > > I am preparing a lengthy reply to Charles Post, which involves a review of > a lot of material I've never looked at before--starting with Phil Foner's > fascinating account of ties between NYC merchants and the Southern > plantations. I was prompted to write about Locke after discovering in James > Oakes "Slavery and Freedom" that his ideas about political economy in > general and slavery in particular were embraced by the slavocracy. > Meanwhile Ellen Meiksins Wood views him as a kind of patron saint of the > agrarian bourgeoisie in Great Britain, which was the vanguard of capitalist > transformation. Meanwhile, Post views slavery and capitalism as > antithetical. I do not and will explain why when I have gathered together > and digested all the relevant material. > > > > > Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
