[OPE] Further evidence RE: Marx, slavery and the South

Further evidence of a problem with Marx's argument is the following:

      "Capitalism advanced in the South [after 1865], both in industry
and agriculture, but without any special technological feature.... It
was, however, the cotton-textile industry that became the principal
industrial engine of capitalist growth. By the 1890s, New England
textile mills began to close shop and move to the South. The magnet for
such movement was the availability of a great reservoir of cheap
labor---the poor whites. The rulers of the post-Civil War South---more
or less the same ones who had ruled before the war---still controlled
cotton agriculture. Vital to continuation of that control was command
over the labor of the emancipated enslaved workers. To have staffed the
textile mills with these workers would have created a competition
between farm and cotton mill; wages would surely have risen. Thus, poor
whites were employed: They were told the new jobs were exclusively
designed for them; blacks were not permitted to work in the mills."
(Meyer Weinberg, A Short History of American Capitalism, p. 145; on in
the middle of Chapter 7: http://www.newhistory.org )

That is, cotton production continued in the South produced by ex-slaves.

Although I don't know whether deteriorating soil was overcome or what

      
www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~20710~550098:Crop-and-per-capita-production,-189

provides cotton production by state. The total in 1891-92 was 9 million
bales (2.3 million in Texas, the largest) compared to 5 million in 1860.

One has to wonder, given this evidence, at Marx's (materialist) argument
that confining slavery to the South (the platform of the 1860 Republican
party) would have implied its end due to economic/agronomic reasons.

Paul Z.

P.S. Thanks, Jurrian for the below and your private message.

=====
(V23) HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11, Seven Stories Press, 2nd ed. softcover
(V24) TRANSITIONS IN LATIN AMERICA (V25) WHY CAPITALISM SURVIVES CRISES
(V26) THE NATIONAL QUESTION AND THE QUESTION OF CRISIS
====> Research in Political Economy, Emerald Group, Bingley, UK
====> P.Zarembka, ed., www.emeraldinsight.com/books.htm?issn=0161-7230
====> or www.buffalo.edu/~zarembka
.

On 2/17/2011 5:57 AM, Jurriaan Bendien wrote:
> Paul
> I just did a quick google with the Texas State Historical Association
> http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/afc03 who mentioned
> this. I assume they didn't just make up the figues.
> Marcel van der Linden reviews some arguments about why slavery was
> used in his book Workers of the World (which I edited)
> http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/afc03
> Jairus Banaji argues that the difference between wage slavery and
> chattel slavery should not be exaggerated
> http://humanitiesunderground.wordpress.com/2011/02/07/reconstructing-historical-materialism-ii/
> Jurriaan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Paul Zarembka <mailto:zarembka@buffalo.edu>
> *To:* Outline on Political Economy mailing list
> <mailto:ope@lists.csuchico.edu>
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 17, 2011 4:34 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [OPE] Marx's explanation regarding the need for the
> U.S. South to obtain new territory
>
>
> On 2/16/2011 6:13 AM, Jurriaan Bendien wrote:
>
> ...
>> In 1849, a census of the cotton production of Texas reported
>> 58,073 "bales" (500 pounds each). In 1852, Texas was in eighth
>> place among the top ten cotton-producing states of the US. The
>> 1859 census credited Texas with a yield of 431,645 bales.
>
> Very interesting data -- what is the source, Jurriaan?
>
>> The total output volume of cotton therefore must have increased
>> by more than seven times in one decade, and the amount of land
>> under cultivation must have increased proportionally. But how
>> much of this expansion of production was attributable
>> specifically to slave labour is a moot point. Cotton production
>> continued to grow also after the abolition of slavery; by the
>> early 20th century Texas was the leading cotton producer in the US.
>
> That is a related question that Marx states but doesn't really
> explain to my satisfaction. That is, I don't understand the
> argument that slavery itself was required for the crops grown in
> the South - which indeed seems to be what Marx was arguing. He
> seemed to be saying more than that slavery was 'consistent' with
> the nature of agriculture production in the South.
>
> Thanks, Paul
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> ope mailing list
> ope@lists.csuchico.edu
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ope mailing list
> ope@lists.csuchico.edu
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
>

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Thu Feb 17 21:50:20 2011