On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:29 PM, David Shemano <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.” >
Was industrial capitalism inevitable and would it have happened even if slavery had not existed? Or more narrowly would the industrial revolution of the US North have taken place even if slavery had not existed in the South? Historical counter-factuals are always unanswerable, but I don't find this possibility preposterous. I think this is quite possible. But I find it disturbing that people find it necessary to explore this counter-factual. Why does it matter? Is this to try and reduce the amount of guilt that present-day descendants of white northerners should feel about profiting from the fruits of that evil institution? It is an indisputable historical fact that profits from slavery and the slave trade contributed significantly to the rise of industrial capitalism. I think it is also inevitable that capitalism *leads* to brutal and extreme forms of exploitation like slavery and the Holocaust. Leopold's Congo happened well after the near-universal abolition of slavery after all. -raghu.
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
