Africans and the industrial revolution/the way out of the crisis

Waistline2 at aol.com Waistline2 at aol.com
Wed Sep 3 15:59:15 MDT 2003


"The evidence is thus clear enough that the slave-based Atlantic world
economy was a critical factor in the transformation of England's economy and society
between 1650 and 1850. It is pertinent to note that apart from the
contribution outlined in this paper, England's shipping, marine insurance business, and
credit institutions owed much of their development during the period to the
operation of the Atlantic world market.1[26] Their development helped to
establish England's supremacy in international trade in commercial services in the
nineteenth century. It is clear from the comparative regional analysis that
mainstream arguments based on agriculture, social structure, and population have
little empirical foundation. Agricultural improvements and progressive social
structures were attained very early in the southern counties of England, while
Lancashire and Yorkshire retained much of their feudal backwardness. Yet it
was these backward counties that produced the Industrial Revolution instead of
the agriculturally and socially progressive southern counties. And they did so
without depending on the agricultural south for market or for labor, the bulk
of their manufactures being exported to Atlantic markets and much of their
labor was internally generated through natural increases, as shown earlier.
Similarly, mainstream argument concerning accidental development of technology will
not wash, given the evidence of our comparative regional analysis."

Comment

Taken from the conclusion of "The Atlantic World Slave Economy and the
Development Process in England, 1650-1850"By Joseph E. Inikori, Ph.D.  University of
Rochester, USA, the above remarks are insightful and in my opinion reaffirm
the position of a section of communist in America, as they expressed themselves
on the origin of industrialization and the bourgeois property relations
several decades ago.

The way that I have expressed this obivous conclusion in my writing is:

"New world slavery drove the process of industrialization. Not so much on the
basis of the capture and utilization of the slave but the development of
navigation, science, metallurgy, shipbuilding, insurance companies or the
infrastructure needed to effect the process itself."

This summarizes the vast data investigated thirty-five years ago and a new
investigation of the history will reveal and uncover neglected areas of study
but offer no new political conclusions. There is nothing wrong with the
individual putting in his own work and discovery, at least in my neighborhood.

What led to the break up of concrete feudal economic relations was the
transformation in the form of wealth from landed property relations to movable
wealth - gold and money/capital. This transformation was accelerated and aided by
New World Slavery and set the stage for the emergence of universal exchange and
the further evolution of the commodity form and the universal emergence of
the law of value.

The bourgeois revolution is not what breaks up feudal economic relations but
is the result of the breaking up of feudal economic relations. The bourgeois
revolution does not usher in industrialization but the bourgeois property
relations that remains obscured by calling it capitalism and capitalist mode of
production. "The capitalist mode of production" is a political concept of the
past generation of Marxist and historically obsolete. Capitalism is a property
relations and not a mode of production; it is a bourgeois relations of
production.

The industrial revolution arises from the revolution in the means of
production and is the meaning of social revolution, while the bourgeois revolution -
the revolution in property relations, arises on the basis of the revolution in
the means of production as its political expression. Both are intertwined or
interactive, but Marxism demands one enter the endless question for
fundamentality. A new era in human history has opened - begun, and the difference that
made no difference in yesteryear is very important today.

Another political summation is: America was basically a Southern country up
to the Civil War in America.  The new nation arose in the North on the basis of
the transition from manufacture to industry and evolved from being an
appendage to the slave system to master and eradicator of the slave form of manual
labor in agriculture. A centuries old sector of the propertied class as ruling
class was overthrown as the result of the Civil War. Two nations, one Union.
Here is the "A -Kill-His" heal of USNA imperialism and the revolutionary way
out.

American is a continent country and Germany can roughly fit into Texas. An
upsurge involving roughly 60-70 million people can topple the bourgeois property
relations.

Bush Jr. can be defeated because the American people are feed up with
selfishness and greed. Poverty is accelerating at an unprecedented pace in our
country. Doctrine of the past period are useless. The great unknown lies before us
and what is required is mastery of the political moment. Next year is already
shaping up as the "Ballot or the Bullet."  The repeat - at a higher level, of
1876 - the Hayes Tilden political motion brought Bush to power on the basis of
almost the exact same Southern states.

I await the political conclusions of this series.

Obliterate the last period and old doctrines. The Third edition of the
American Revolution is unfolding in front of us.

Melvin P.





More information about the Marxism mailing list