Adam Smith On Slavery

[noetsi]

Parts of all states prior to the 20th century were not capitalistic. One can argue if the US south was so in much of the 20th century. The point is that capitalistic enteprises, such as British shipping, were involved in slavery and capitalistic dominated countries like England and the US accepted it in their society (West Indies planters did not run the British parliment - prior to the civil war few in the north wanted to end slavery in the south).

I agree that slavery is incompatiable with an industrial system. But non-manufacturing capitalist interest can and have been involved in slavery and countries run by capitalist have accepted slavery in their state.

[Randomstudent]

Originally Posted by noetsi

Parts of all states prior to the 20th century were not capitalistic. One can argue if the US south was so in much of the 20th century. The point is that capitalistic enteprises, such as British shipping, were involved in slavery and capitalistic dominated countries like England and the US accepted it in their society (West Indies planters did not run the British parliment - prior to the civil war few in the north wanted to end slavery in the south).

I agree that slavery is incompatiable with an industrial system. But non-manufacturing capitalist interest can and have been involved in slavery and countries run by capitalist have accepted slavery in their state.

Capitalistic enterprises can only be involved with slavery in tertiary roles like shipping, and purchasing. 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. Thus why capitalism and slavery cannot co-exist in the same geographic area and or market area without one eventually destroying the other. Even in an agricultural setting capitalistic/entrepenuerial Yeoman farmers both of the Northern States and West Virginia were ardently Unionist (even if they were racist), because their economic practices were directly at odds with the slave based platation system of the South.

[Irishtom29]

Originally Posted by Randomstudent

The fact of the matter is capitalism is defined as much or more in the relationships between workers and management

By whom? Is such a definition a recent one? Do historians, economists and politicians share the same definitions?

I understand capitalism in simple terms to be a system where ownership and production are private as opposed to socialism where business is state owned. By such a definition slavery and capitalism are compatible.

[Randomstudent]

Originally Posted by Irishtom29

By whom? Is such a definition a recent one? Do historians, economists and politicians share the same definitions?

I understand capitalism in simple terms to be a system where ownership and production are private as opposed to socialism where business is state owned. By such a definition slavery and capitalism are compatible.

Both Smith and Marx define it this way and no matter what your economic view is you generally should buy into at least one of their views.

Everything I have studied in economics suggests that capitalism is a particular division of labor design to maximize out put and profit for a existing capital resources. Simple as that...and slavery is not compatible with that kind of capitalistic view of labor management.

[noetsi]

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.

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.

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.