Fw: [PEN-L:13492] Re: Progress (was No agrarian revo?)

Xxxx Xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx at xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Sun Jun 17 13:02:36 MDT 2001



A very impressive and an educational post on slavery, Mark. Thanks for
posting this.You guys are still discussing this issue on pen-l?

Seems the topic is still unclear to some. I would have got my phd, boy,
after all this education in the cyber space:-))

bye, Xxxx

---
Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx
Ph.D Student
Department of Political Science
SUNY at Albany
Nelson A. Rockefeller College
135 Western Ave.; Milne 102
Albany, NY 12222


----------
> From: Mark Jones <jones118 at lineone.net>
> To: pen-l at galaxy.csuchico.edu
> Cc: marxism <marxism at lists.panix.com>
> Subject: RE: [PEN-L:13492] Re: Progress (was No agrarian revo?)
> Date: Sunday, June 17, 2001 2:21 PM
>
> Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> >
> > Within a given social formation which has come under the hegemony of
> > the capitalist mode of production, a variety of modes of surplus
> > extraction (chattel slavery, indentured servitude, petty commodity
> > production, wage labor, etc.) can exist.  "Under all forms of society
> > there is a certain industry which predominates over all the rest and
> > whose condition therefore determines the rank and influence of all
> > the rest. It is the universal light with which all other colours are
> > tinged and by whose peculiarity they are modified. It is a special
> > ether which determines the specific gravity of everything that
> > appears in it" (_Grundrisse_).  Chattel slavery, indentured
> > servitude, & other forms of unfree labor in the history of modern
> > colonialism increasingly took on the quality that was *quite
> > different* from pre-capitalist modes of unfree labor, *because* they
> > were determined by the expanding reproduction of the relation between
> > capital & free labor elsewhere (the expanded reproduction of the
> > relation between capital & free labor & resulting rise of productive
> > forces also made the main contribution to the *abolition* of chattel
> > slavery -- Cf. Eric Williams).
>
>
> With respect to slavery as an adjunct within an over-determining
capitalist
> mode of production, however, it is clear that goods produced by slaves
and
> sold on a unified world market, contain embodied surplus labour which can
be
> valorised as capital. That is uncontroversial and even trivially true.
> Slavery is not only an important part of the prehistory of
protocapitalism,
> it exists and will always be reproduced as an essential but subordinate
> element of global accumulation processes.
>
> Some labour processes remain outside the global circuits of capital and
are
> local or national in character. Polish estate labour took a feudal form
> until well into the 19th C. Domestic outwork performed by women under
> patriarchal supervision is another obvious case. So is slave-labour in US
> cotton plantations or American silver mines. The value of this labour is
> nonetheless progressively absorbed by capital, and forms part of the
overall
> accumulation process. Even subsistence labour for self-consumed products
> which never enter the market, can serve to create a submerged, often
> ruralised, population which is potentially part of the reserve army of
> labour available for capitalist exploitation. Subsistence non-market
> production also created secondary forms of exchange and markets whose
> products, which otherwise would not exist, are absorbed by the world
market.
> Subsistence non-cash-crop farmers may produce commodities which later
enter
> exchange, and even though no capitalist labour process is involved, the
flow
> of such commodities from the peripheries to the centre forms part of the
> process of unequal exchange between the neocolonies and the metropoles.
>




More information about the Marxism mailing list