Quote:
Capitalistic enterprises can only be involved with slavery in tertiary roles like shipping, and purchasing.
|
Shipping is not a tertitary role of a capitalist economy - its perhaps the single most important feature of it. A point even more true in the 19th century. The mills of New England and England (which
was capitalism then) depended on the slave run cotton farms in the south. The only thing slavery can not be involved in is something that requires high skills or personal enterprise. There is nothing unique to capitalism that prevents slavery - it is prevented by advanced industrial systems and was in societies such as Japan or the Soviet Union before World War Two which were not capitalistic.
Quote:
The fact of the matter is capitalism is defined as much or more in the relationships between workers and management as it is by the profit motive and slavery/manorialism has a very different relationship between workers and management then capitalism.
|
The different relationship has to do with the need to employ different types of workers. The planters in the south had the same profit motive the New England factory owners had. They just maximised their profit differently. The functional demands of their industry drove the way they related to their workforce not the theory of capitalism. You have the causality reversed.
Quote:
Thus why capitalism and slavery cannot co-exist in the same geographic area and or market area without one eventually destroying the other.
|
They coexisted quite well in the US for 80 years and in the British Empire for more than a century. They would have existed far longer in both had the slave owners not blundered in the US or had religion (not economics) defeated slavery in the Empire. Wilberforce and a group of religious influenced men defeated the economic interests supportive of slavery in parliment. It was not driven by economics or capitalists owners.