“His economic analysis is completely............positivistic. I enjoy his history, but he gaffs whenever he errs into econ. How is slavery capitalistic? Is it supposed to be capitalistic because someone profits from work? If so, how is this "capitalistic" production different from any other mode of production? There is no such thing BUT capitalism, but slavery is slightly different, and is in its allocation of resources socialistic by denotation--that is, the profit motive of individuals (in this case, Africans) is sacrificed to the "social need" of some other group (in this case "white slave-owners") who are backed by nothing but superior force (government monopoly on force).
Slavery is NOT capitalistic in any meaningful sense, because the oppression of workers and the denial of their freedom entails a lack of a market for a whole population (namely, an unimpeded African market). We could call slavery protection (favoring slave-owners over Africans) or intervention (government protection of slave status in a legal framework), but we couldn't call it a market phenomenon.
Unfortunately, if you don't understand econ, the entire story of Colonial America (settlers smuggling guns and goods to indians against the laws established by colonial authorities--forming a black market--or colonial merchants trading with other nations/colonies outside of the Navigation Acts and other interventionist and protectionist measures implement by English authorities) looks like a giant concerted push towards the centralization of economic and political power.”
Shaolin Ninja via Apple Podcasts ·
United States of America ·
11/09/11