I understand the argument that accumulation of wealth in a capitalist society is impossible without exploitation/political injustice. But why does it matter whether the political system in which the exploitation occurs is slave, feudal, theocratic, wage-based, etc.? In other words, if we imagine a counter-factual that slavery was abolished in the USA in 1789 (which could have happened), the slaves were freed, and became exploited sharecroppers at that time, would the industrialization and economic growth that occurred later in the 19th Century in the USA not have occurred? I assume you say yes and point to the exploitation, which I understand, but your argument is then not "dependent" on the existence of "slavery."
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tom Walker Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 10:57 AM To: Progressive Economics Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Capitalism and slavery Why does it matter? It has to do with whether the accumulation of large holdings of wealth and extreme economic and social inequality can be reconciled with ANY notion of political justice. The "poem" I posted a while ago, "Sheep for Shells," was John Locke's answer to the question -- once money takes care of the issue of "perishing" there can be no objection to the largeness of possession (presumably). Locke's argument is actually a lot more ambiguous than neo-liberal ideology presumes. The "labour" that supposedly "mixes" with "nature" to confer property is predicated on reason. That makes it indeterminate in a world where learning can occur. Locke claimed that he once observed "the issue of a cat and a rat." My guess would be that he saw an opossum and perceived it as a cross between a rodent and a feline. The accumulation of knowledge doesn't necessarily invalidate everything Locke said but it does put it into context. Rocks don't grow from seeds and the cat-rats don't actually exist but the classical liberal argument for the justice of large wealth inequality is still based on archaic, anachronistic and quasi-alchemical assumptions about how things were in the "state of nature." On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 9:52 AM, David Shemano <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Instead of debating counter-factuals, how about answering my question, which is why does it matter? I am serious and asking out of ignorance. I just don't understand why the issue is important to Marxists. David Shemano From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Tom Walker Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 9:06 PM To: Progressive Economics Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Capitalism and slavery No, it seems to me LESS than a parlor game. If David can produce a parallel case in which his counter-factual actually occurred then maybe he could make his argument. Just saying "if things had been different they could have still have been the same" is not quite a "counter-factual" it is simply bullshit. This is not to to gainsay bullshitting. But if one is going to bullshit, it seems to me that one would want to bullshit on behalf of a "moral principle" (or whatever you want to call it) that has some virtue to it. I mean virtue in some classical Roman sense of excellence. Bullshitting on behalf of accumulation has no moral excellence to it. It's bullshitting on behalf of bull shit. Bull shit all the way down. As in "I once saw a creature that was the issue of a cat and a rat..." On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 8:26 PM, Michael Smith <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > If, however, the point is that the rapid economic takeoff of capitalist > economies in the 19th century was "dependent" on its prior profitable > relationship with a slave economy, I just don't see it. > We can only speculate about counter-factuals, but the notion > that a "necessary" condition to the growth in the North in the > last quarter of the 19th Century was slavery in the South for > the prior 200 years does not ring true to me. Two quite different propositions, aren't they? On the one hand, a factual: 'depended on' -- this is where the money did in fact come from. On the other, a hypothetical: 'necessary condition' -- which we can translate from the hypostatical nominative as 'wouldn't have happened without'. Of course we will never know what would have happened without, so it's a best a parlor game to speculate. -- -- Michael J. Smith [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org http://fakesprogress.blogspot.com http://cars-suck.org 'I understand that you left your University rather suddenly. Now -- why was that?' 'I was sent down, sir, for indecent behaviour.' 'Indeed, indeed? Well, I shall not ask for details. I have been in the scholastic profession long enough to know that nobody enters it unless he has some very good reason which he is anxious to conceal.' _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l -- Cheers, Tom Walker (Sandwichman) _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l -- Cheers, Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
