As a further answer to David S's question, the notorious "carpetbaggers" (see below) were principles and agents of Northern "hostile takeovers" and "vulture capitalists" . One capitalist absorbed many Southern capitals. This was monopolization, centralization of capital, a process that Marx noted in the penultimate chapter of _Capital_ as a main feature of the historical tendency of capitalist accumulation. This contributed to the Northern takeoff without slavery , but was dependent on the leftover wealth of slave-owning capitalism.
"The Northerners were especially successful in taking control of Southern railroads, aided by state legislatures. In 1870 Northerners controlled 21% of the South's railroads (by mileage); 19% of the directors were from the North. By 1890 they controlled 88% of the mileage; 47% of the directors were from the North.[9]" (see below on carpetbaggers) Furthermore, Marx , of course, demonstrates in _Capital_ that doubly "free" labor , wage-labor, is the modal form of capitalism. He argues that Slave labor was the chief momenta of the primitive accumulation of capital through super-exploitation, ( I call it a turbo boost at the beginning) but it was not an optimum basis for the long term accumulation of capital. For one thing, slaves cannot constitute the mass of consumers needed by capitalism, because they are not paid wages. Capitalism needs masses of laborers who can buy the great mass of personal consumption commodities so that profits can be realized. The money consumers of commodities pay _is_ what is accumulated as capital, capital being money in its form. ( M-C-M1 is Marx's classic formula for capital accumulation, "M" being money that can only be had by selling commodities , "C") It is not really contradictory within the Marxist paradigm to see the slave mode as being condition of economic development in the North before the war; and to see Northern capital, only now becoming industrial, growing out of America's manufacturing historical phase ( "industrial" vs "manufacturing" phases of capital is a historical developmental distinction made by Marx in _Capital_); and beginning the development of finance capital, monopoly capital, which has its own process of "turboboosting" capital accumulation. Jay Gould is something of celebrity archetype in this period. The American Industrial revolution is later than the British , and it is begins somewhat coincident with the Civil War. The Northern takeover of the South gives it a boost. ^^^^^ CB: "One capitalist kill many". The fact that the Bankers and Industrialists on Wall Street did business with the slave-owners before the war would not in the least prevent them from doing hostile takeovers of what was left of the slave-owning capitalists' property after the latter were destroyed by the war. Carpetbagger http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpetbagger#Economic_motives In United States history, carpetbagger was a pejorative term Southerners gave to Northerners (also referred to as Yankees) who moved to the South during the Reconstruction era, between 1865 and 1877. The term referred to the observation that these newcomers tended to carry "carpet bags," a common form of luggage at the time (sturdy and made from used carpet). It was used as a derogatory term, suggesting opportunism and exploitation by the outsiders. Together with Republicans they are said to have politically manipulated and controlled former Confederate states for varying periods for their own financial and power gains. In sum, carpetbaggers were seen as insidious Northern outsiders with questionable objectives meddling in local politics, buying up plantations at fire-sale prices and taking advantage of Southerners. The term carpetbaggers was also used to describe the Republican political appointees who came South, arriving with their travel carpet bags. Southerners considered them ready to loot and plunder the defeated South.[1] In modern usage in the U.S., the term is sometimes used derisively to refer to a politician who runs for public office in an area of the south where he or she does not have deep community ties, or has lived only for a short time. In the United Kingdom, the term was adopted to refer informally to those who join a mutual organization, such as a building society, in order to force it to demutualize, that is, to convert into a joint stock company, solely for personal financial gain. Economic motives Many carpetbaggers were businessmen who purchased or leased plantations and became wealthy landowners, hiring freedmen to do the labor. Most were former Union soldiers eager to invest their savings in this promising new frontier, and civilians lured south by press reports of "the fabulous sums of money to be made in the South in raising cotton." Foner notes that "joined with the quest for profit, however, was a reforming spirit, a vision of themselves as agents of sectional reconciliation and the South's "economic regeneration." Accustomed to viewing Southerners—black and white—as devoid of economic initiative and self-discipline, they believed that only "Northern capital and energy" could bring "the blessings of a free labor system to the region."[6] Carpetbaggers tended to be well educated and middle class in origin. Some had been lawyers, businessmen, newspaper editors, Union Army members and other pillars of Northern communities. The majority (including 52 of the 60 who served in Congress during Reconstruction) were veterans of the Union Army.[7] Leading "black carpetbaggers" believed the interests of capital and labor identical, and the freedmen entitled to little more than an "honest chance in the race of life."[8] Many Northern and Southern Republicans shared a modernizing vision of upgrading the Southern economy and society, one that would replace the inefficient Southern plantation regime with railroads, factories and more efficient farming. They actively promoted public schooling and created numerous colleges and universities. The Northerners were especially successful in taking control of Southern railroads, aided by state legislatures. In 1870 Northerners controlled 21% of the South's railroads (by mileage); 19% of the directors were from the North. By 1890 they controlled 88% of the mileage; 47% of the directors were from the North.[9] On 4/1/13 1:47 PM, David Shemano wrote: > The quote within a quote within a quote ends: 'What would New York > be without slavery?'" > > Well, slavery ended in 1865. According to Wikipedia, NYC's > population went from 813k in 1860 to 1.2m in 1880 to 3.4m in 1900. > Any dispute that NYC did pretty well in the Gilded Age? What am I to > make of the fact that NYC really took and thrived after the end of > slavery? > > David Shemano Louis Proyect: I imagine that with the end of Reconstruction in 1877 and the descent of African-Americans in the Deep South into a status that was free in name only, the Great American profit-making machine benefited the privileged everywhere, including NY. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
