Capitalism And Slavery (in The United States)

[Marxist_Fire]

There has been a great deal of Marxist theory produced on the connection between capitalism and slavery, especially the capitalism and slavery that took that developed in the United States. As you know, Marxists generally see the rise of American industrial capitalism as being fueled in by the enslavement of blacks for free labor. The US managed to get economically powerful and wealthy by extracting the maximum possible surplus value from individuals who were slaves.

Socialism, as we all know, needs a state of economic abundance to occur, and American capitalism has produced such in abundance. This point was clear enough to enough to non-Marxists I have had political discussions with. However, they have presented a criticism that I have not been able to effectively address. It has been worded in different ways, but here is a representative, composite form:

"Marxists claim to be against oppression in all of its forms. They also claim that a significant degree of economic development is necessary for the attainment of socialism. In the US, slavery was a brutal form of oppression: it also led to a booming capitalist economy, the kind needed for socialism. In this situation, how would it have been possible for one to fight against the oppression of slavery *and* for the future attainment of socialism? Isn't there a big contradiction here?"

I am not (yet!) an expert on Marxism, and am still studying it, so could someone please tell me how I can effectively respond to such a criticism? Thanks.

[Connolly]

Well, im not exactly sure what you mean.

But, slavery (as in actual slavery - not just wage slavery) would indicate a particular stage of societal development as a method to obtain working labour.

Slavery, in the form you talk about, is no longer existant in modern advanced capitalist societies - it is, a more primitive form of production.

So, if thats a lesser method of production, and we are living at the most advanced level of production ever in human history - and have not transitioned to socialism - then it must be concluded that socialism cannot be achieved through a slave revolt since the productive forces, at that time, were less than what we have now.

Socialism will occur at a stage of production greater than what we have achieved so far - it cannot come about through primitive production methods.

If I have missed your point, let me add further. The slave revolts would have, providing there is an alternative, force the bourgeoisie to look for labour power elsewhere as a source of wealth creation. That might have meant investing in mechanised, semi - automatic mass production - advancing the developments of production.

So, the slaves revolting - actually creates, in time, greater productive power.

Im not really familiar with US history or the slave revolts - so I could be wrong about that last bit.

Hope that answers your question partly. :)

[R_P_A_S]

NOW! I'm probably the least qualified to answer your question. But I would imagine that after Capitalism is destroyed we would pay the slaves reparations? Land, Money, Rights? I don;t know.

[Epoche]

They also claim that a significant degree of economic development is necessary for the attainment of socialism.

That economic development is the stage for the advancement of socialism. At such a point, or so it is theorized, when capitalism generates its economy through exploitation of wage workers, the workers eventually revolt and remove the parasite from its mode of production. Socialism is a consequence of this condition; by calling such economy "neccessary," what is really meant is that such an economy will result in socialism, rather than be a condition of its necessity. So it isn't that socialism "needs" the economy produced in a capitalism, but rather it is a natural effect of a capitalist economy. So this:


In this situation, how would it have been possible for one to fight against the oppression of slavery *and* for the future attainment of socialism?

...is putting the cart before the horse.

[Hit The North]

Marxist Fire:


In the US, slavery was a brutal form of oppression: it also led to a booming capitalist economy, the kind needed for socialism. In this situation, how would it have been possible for one to fight against the oppression of slavery *and* for the future attainment of socialism? Isn't there a big contradiction here?"

Firstly, slavery didn't lead to a booming economy. It is usually found at an early stage in capitalism when agricultural production dominates over industrial manufacture. European economies also utilised slavery in their early phase. However, a modern capitalist economy needs to shed the use of slavery in favour of free labour which is more productive.

Slavery was defended mainly by landed capital where it was concentrated. It was generally opposed by industrial capital (which occupied the progressive element of the bourgeoisie in the 19th century) because it hindered the further development of the means of production.

So in answer to your friends, tell them:

a) As a marxist, dedicated to the goal of human freedom you are obliged to oppose slavery of all kinds; futher:

b) To oppose slavery in the 18th and 19th centuries would have been progressive anyway - not just because its a more humane view - but becasue it would aid the further development of capitalism and, ultimately, increase the opportunities for socialist revolution in the future.

Hence, there's no contradiction to answer.

[RedJacobin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 10:06 PM
"Marxists claim to be against oppression in all of its forms. They also claim that a significant degree of economic development is necessary for the attainment of socialism. In the US, slavery was a brutal form of oppression: it also led to a booming capitalist economy, the kind needed for socialism. In this situation, how would it have been possible for one to fight against the oppression of slavery *and* for the future attainment of socialism? Isn't there a big contradiction here?"
Not trying to be flippant, but I think there's an obvious response:

Neither slavery nor capitalism are necessary to produce economic abundance.

Socialism would be able to produce abundance better than both of them because people would be working for their own interests for the first time. The mental/manual barrier would be broken down too, unleashing a lot of unfulfilled human potential in the sciences.

There's just one thing to keep mind: knowing what we now know about the ecological costs of industrial development, abundance would have to be redefined (maybe in terms of public goods like theaters, parks, restaurants, and art galleries instead of private goods like mansions and SVUs).

[Janus]

But I would imagine that after Capitalism is destroyed we would pay the slaves reparations? Land, Money, Rights? I don;t know.
It would be difficult and pointless to do reparations in a new revolutionary society because everyone would be equal.

There would be no private property to grant and probably no money either (depending on which stage we're talking about). And they would have the same rights.

[Connolly]

It would be difficult and pointless to do reparations in a new revolutionary society because everyone would be equal.

There would be no private property to grant and probably no money either (depending on which stage we're talking about). And they would have the same rights.

Id agree with that.

It all depends what your "vision" of socialism is.

I believe its a society without private property and without money - amongst the workers districts.

What seperates socialism from communism IMO, is the existance of the proletarian state (it being the proletariat themselves) - and quite obviously from this - the existance of the bourgeoisie - their opposing state (army, forces of reaction)

So - I picture, during revolution - the existance of two states as it were.

The proletarian state made up of the proletariat themselves as a whole and its purpose is to supress the bourgeoisie.

And the bourgeoisie state - made up of confused proletarians fighting against the progressive forces.

So, really, and in control of different territories - are two opposing states representing the interests of the two classes.

It is a fight for state control.

Anyone else see such an occurance?..............or are there holes throughout?

I really havnt looked at it from that way before until now.

I think the idea of two classes fighting can be misleading - rather - two states.

comments?