It's not true that slave planations were not technologically dynamic. It's not true that self-sufficiency compromised the capitalist characters of most slave plantations. Firms do not have to reduce their numbers in absolute terms to be capitalist. In terms of the monetization of the inputs, the slave plantations were much more capitalist than the estates of the second serfdom. Blackburn is clear about this. That capital had to pay for slaves to man plantations in land-rich areas does not compromise the capitalist character of plantations or the fact that slaves were capital-positing slaves. Profits do not have to be mostly reinvested in the firm for a firm to be capitalist. Absolute surplus value production is a form of capitalist production. Really, what is Post getting at? His arguments are very unpersuasive.
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
