Hi Alfredo [6907], rethinking now your important question of *how* to theorise slave relations within capitalism: Jerry in [6920], and in all his subsequent posts to this strand, sheds the deepest light on your question which fundamentally concerns the problem of how to differentiate 'historical contingencies' from 'necessity' (i.e. the essential relations of capitalism) and the inter-relation between the two. I have found your question and Jerry's elaboration most stimulating and thought changing. In fact, I now have to retract my previous statement that the use of slaves is of no concern to me in developing a VFT perspective. This is because VFT theory is focused precisely on this attempt to make the differentiation between necessity and contingency. Slave labour is not necessary to the existence and reproduction of contemporary capitalism, so it is a historical contingency (ie. it may have been important in the development of capitalism in the new world in the past, and remnants of it might persist today, but it is not absolutely essential the to capitalism). In contrast, wage labour is a necessity (i.e. essential to the existence of reproduction and capitalism). If this is accepted, the question then arises: what role within the theory of capitalism (the demonstration of logical necessity) does historical contingency play? I think you are right to say that the question has to be answered. To say what is 'necessary' is by implication to say what is 'contingent' and to pose questions about the relation between the two. So, I was wrong to suggest that slavery as a contingency cannot simply be set aside (any more than the gold standard, a contingency, can be set aside in a theorisation of money). In other words, even if slave labour is not considered 'necessary' there is still the question of *specifying* clearly the role that contingencies play within the VFT theory (largely a black hole at the moment). In this sense, understanding exactly *how* slave relations interact with the necessary capital/wage-labour relation must indeed increase understanding of capitalism (as you suggested at the beginning, and as Jerry's posts amply demonstrate). If I am right in this, then our different understandings of key concepts (such as the capital-labour relation, the commodity, value, surplus value and abstract labour) merely mask a shared problem. And this is precisely the problem that you identify in your question: *how* to *theorise* the role that contingent social relations play in capitalism (i.e. the interaction with essential relations). Perhaps in answering your question, I initially mistook the wood (the problem) for the trees (the differences in theoretical frameworks). Thanks again for provoking this stimulating discussion best Nicky ----------------------- Nicola Taylor Faculty of Economics Murdoch University South Street Murdoch W.A. 6150 Australia Tel. 61 8 9385 1130 email: n.taylor@stu.murdoch.edu.au
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu May 02 2002 - 00:00:08 EDT