sartesian wrote:

No, the issue is precisely not did slavery, did looting, did murder
contribute to capitalism.... no issue because there is no argument.  Of
course all those things did.



So the class that led the American revolution, or at least a good part
of it, was not involved with capitalist production. Interesting. Very
interesting. I was always under the impression that 1776 represented the
vanguard of capitalist property relations. That is what Lenin thought as
well.

But none of those things created the social relations of production that
defines capital.  None of those things created the terms of capitalist
reproduction.  In one of those things did  the capitalist reproduce
himself as capitalist, nor did the wage-worker reproduce himself/herself
as wage-worker.


Let me repeat. Wage labor was not an option in the colonies. The very
same bourgeoisie that was involved with large farm production of the
sort that Brenner is fixated on farmed in an identical fashion in the
colonies. With one exception. They used slaves rather than wage labor.
It seems far-fetched to label one agrarian ruling class as
"precapitalist" and the other as "capitalist", especially since this
defies our understanding of the bourgeois revolution against the crown.
Perhaps we should label it as a counter-revolution and characterize
George Washington as the American Kornilov.

For Jefferson or any other slaveholder to engage in commercial slavery,
there had to be systems that supported, absorbed commercial slavery.
Feudalism was one.  Absolutism another.  Mercantile capitalism yet
another.



Actually, Marx does not talk about mercantile capitalism. He talks about
mercantile capital. As far as "absolutism" is concerned,  I don't
remember Engels discussing that in "Origins of the Family, Private
Property and the State".


In Latin America, the Philippines, Africa, and the US South agricultural
production persists for centuries on a basis that is patently incapable
of supporting internal capitalist reproduction.  These are systems that
change only through dramatic external impacts-- i.e. the mechanizationof
agriculture in the  US South beginning and following WW2.


We obviously have different ideas about "internal capitalist
reproduction". When King Leopold terrorized the Congolese people to pick
rubber to be used in Belgian tire companies, this was "internatl
capitalist reproduction". The factories were in Belgium and the raw
materials were in Africa, but it is all part of capitalist production.
Without the press gangs in the Congo, there are no tires to be made in
Belgium.

Reply via email to