slave proletarian

7/29/2019 Slave Proletarian

1/19

Research Foundation of SUNY

Was the Plantation Slave a Proletarian?Author(s): Sidney W. MintzSource: Review (Fernand Braudel Center), Vol. 2, No. 1 (Summer, 1978), pp. 81-98Published by: Research Foundation of SUNY for and on behalf of the Fernand Braudel CenterStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40240791 .

Accessed: 07/09/2011 13:16

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Research Foundation of SUNYand Fernand Braudel Centerare collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access toReview (Fernand Braudel Center).

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rfsunyhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fbchttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40240791?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40240791?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fbchttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rfsuny


2/19

Review, I, 1, Summer1978, 81-98.Was thePlantationSlave a Proletarian?*

SidneyW.MintzBetween thebeginnings f the African lave tradeto the NewWorld, hortlyafter1500, and theabolitionofslaveryn the ast New World erritories here thad remained egal (Puerto Rico: 1873-1876; Cuba: 1886; Brazil: 1888), prob-ably more than9,000,000 enslaved Africanswere shippedwestward cross theAtlantic.1 The institution mbodied in the capture,sale, transportation,ndexploitationof African laves n the westernhemisphere hus astednearlyfourhundredyears, and was legal forcenturies, n large and much differentiatedregionswithin heAmericas.Manydifferent uropean powerswere involved nthe sale, use and, often,resale of enslaved Africans.Local practices n thesematters ariedwidely, nd wereusually ubjectto metropolitan odes of aw andmetropolitan ureaucracies thoughthesenever were the ast word nregulatingthe treatment, are,and defenseof the enslaved). Hence to try o addressgene-rallythe natureofslavery s it existed n the NewWorld, r itscommon features

*Firstpresented t a seminar f the FernandBraudelCenter, tateUniversityf New York at Binghamton,February , 1977, I am gratefulo ProfessorWallersteinortheopportunityo airmyviews nd, ndeed,for hechoiceoftopic, owhichhe asked me to addressmyself.See PhilipA. Curtin, he Atlantic lave Trade:A Census Madison:Univ.of Wisconsin ress, 969).


3/19

82 SidneyW.Mintzas an institutionn the New World etting,s a risky nd frequentlynprofitableundertaking.Not onlywas slaverydifferentn the colonies of one power fromwhat it was in those of another, ut even within ne imperial ystem, herewereoftensignificant ifferences n the slavery nstitution romcolony to colony.Moreover,time and circumstancedeeply affectedthe way slaveryworked inparticularmilieux.Demographymattered; s did the prevailing orm fworkatwhich slaveswere employed;whether he slaveswere"creolized" - seasoned tothe slavery egimen, r born nto it, acculturated o the NewWorld onditions,or caughtup in themeaning nd memories f a distant ife- all these, nd manyotherfactors,much nfluencedwhatslaverywas, and how it was experienced.In this paper, I shall attemptto limit thegeographical cope of my inquiryand, thereby, t leastsomepartof theeconomic,political, nd cultural ariationwithwhich mightotherwisehave to struggle,were I attemptingo look at thewhole hemisphere.But I deliberatelydo not limitthe time-spanwith whichdeal, since one of mymajor concernshere is the significance f differentime-periods and what those differencesntailed) forthe question thepapermeansto address: the relationship etweenthe terms nd categories proletarian'*nd"slave". Plainly, numberof fairly irmines need to be drawn, o avoid drown-ing ngeneralities. he term plantation lave", as I mean to use ithere,refers ochattelslaves,persons purchasedor inherited nd owned as property,who wereused as laborers n large agriculturalstatesproducing ommodities or mainly)European markets,between the firstdecade of the sixteenth entury nd theninthdecade of the nineteenth.Nearly ll,butbyno meansall,such slaveswereborn in Africaor were thedescendants at least npart)ofpeople whowere.Bythe "Caribbean region" I have in mind in particular he Greaterand LesserAntilles,with an importantnod in the directionof the Guianas. I thinkthat twould not be impossible (though it would entailextremely urdensomediffi-culties and a good deal more space) to extendthe treatment o includeBrazil,parts of Mexico and Central America, and even much of the United StatesSouth; I deliberately void suchextensions,whilerecognizinghat havealreadytaken on too much.I am unable to limitmyself imilarlyn time,as I have said; nor can I avoidthe complications implicit in refiningwhat I mean by "plantation".Just asslavery tselfvariedwith place and with time, so, too, did the natureof theenterprises pon which slaves toiled. Plantationsthemselves lso variedverywidely, ccordingto a greatmany environingonditions.Perhaps t is enoughtosay for the presentthat am hereparticularlyoncernedwith ugar-cane lanta-tions,which were presentthroughout he four centuries hat nterestme, andwere doubtless more important han any othertype of Caribbeanplantation,during hisentirefour-hundredearperiod.I am not preparedto be so offhand n dealingwiththe term"proletarian",but I can statebriefly, t least,what I have n mindby it. In thefirst olume ofCapital KarlMarxdiscusses hebuying nd selling f abor-power s an aspectofthe capitalistmode of production,2wherein t becomes very learthat "free"laborer s not thereby nd automatically member f theproletariat.ndeed, as

2* KarlMarx,Capital New York: InternationalubL,1939), I, 145 ff.


4/19

WasthePlantation lave a Proletarian? 83Marxemploysthe term"proletariat", t is boundup quite narrowlynd specifi-cally with the rise of capitalism,wherein"labour-powercan appear upon themarket s a commodity, nly f,and so far s, itspossessor, he ndividualwhoselabour-powert is, offerst for ale,or sells t,as a commodity."? ndeed,that sthe first riterion f proletarianabor-power. econd, byMarx'sreckoning,ucha seller of labor-poweras a commoditycannot sell himself, r sell his abor-power "once and forall/' sinceby so doinghe would become something therthan a free ellerof his own effort. hird, hesellermustbe obligated o sellhislabor, by virtueof having nothingelse either to sell, or by which to sustainhimself;he has no choice but to sell his labor-power.That a free aborerhasnothingto sell but his effort, hat he sees and offers o sell that effort s acommodity o itsprospective uyer, nd that he hasnothing ut his labor-powerto sell,all becomepartsof thedefinition f theproletarian."We have seen," Marx writes,"that the expropriation f the mass of thepeople from he soil forms hebasisof thecapitalistmode ofproduction;"4and"so-called primitiveccumulation .. is nothing lse thanthe historical rocessof divorcing heproducerfrom he means of production."5What refer o by"proletarian", hen,consistentwith theseassertions,s thefreebutpropertylesssellerof his own labor-power s a commodity o a capitalist uyerofcommodi-ties,amongthem hecommodity f labor-power,o undertake resh roduction.It was never Marx's sole or explicit intention, o faras I know,to drawanorderly ontrastbetween slaves and proletariansn orderto endow thesetermswithdefinitions hatcould become eternalverities.His concernwas above all tounderstand nd to reveal the innernature of the capitalist ystem, nd of thecapitalistmode of production,as these typified he historyof Europe. Wellaware that he could not ignoreor treatas irrelevanthe activities f the Euro-peansoutsidetheEuropeanheartland, e saw thatthe forms f aborexaction ndifferentartsofthe world n whichtheEuropeanswereactiveboth arosefrom,andreactedbackupon, developmentsn Europe itself:Freedom nd slavery onstitute n antagonism. . . We arenotdealingwith ndirectslavery,heslavery f theproletariat,utwithdirect lavery,he lavery f theblackraces nSurinam,n Brazil,nthe outherntates fNorthAmerica. irect laverys asmuchthepivotof our industrialismodayas machinery,redit, tc.Withoutlavery,no cotton;without otton no modern ndustry. laveryhas given heir alue to thecolonies;the colonieshave createdworld rade;world rade s thenecessaryonditionof arge-scalemachine ndustry. efore hetrafficn Negroesbeganthecoloniessup-pliedthe Old Worldwithveryfewproducts nd made no visible hange n theface ofthe arth.Thusslaverys an economic ategory fthehighestmportance.6But his interest hroughout emainedEurope,thepivotofwhatcould be incitedto happenelsewhere, he beatingheartofcapitalist ndeavor.Fromthatcenter,

3* Ibid., 1,146.4* Ibid., , 793.5#Ibid., , 738.6* Letter f KarlMarxto P. V. Anncnkov, ecember28, 1846, inKarl Marx& Frederick ngels:Se-lectedWorksNewYork: InternationalubL,1968), 13-14.


5/19

84 SidneyW.Mtntzmen, materials, nd wealth flowed outward in orderto integratewithinthecentral design regions,populations, and resources that had lain outside andlargelyunaffectedbeforehand.Thus the expansion of European capitalism n-volvedthe assimilation o homeland- that is to say,to European metropolitan- objectives,of societies and peoples that were not yet partof the capitalistsystem.The ways in which this assimilationwas set in motion,and the formsthat it took were of coursehighlyvariable.They werenot, theycould not be,identicalto thoseprocessesthathad typified uropeaneconomicgrowth;yet twas preciselyEuropean expansion itself hatbrought heseexternal reaswithinthe ambitof European power and economy,even if the forms f their ntegra-tion differed adicallyfrom those familiarfromEurope itself. n spite of hisprevailingoncernwithEurope,Marxunderstood hiswell:Thediscoveryfgold nd ilvernAmerica,he xtirpation,nslavementnd ntomb-mentn mines f the boriginalopulation,he eginningf he onquestnd ootingof theEast ndies,he urningfAfricanto warren or he ommercialuntingfblack kins,ignalizedherosy awn fthe raof apitalistroduction.hesedyllicproceedingsre he hiefmomentafprimitiveccumulation.. .

The different omenta fprimitiveccumulation istribute hemselvesow,moreorless in chronological rder,particularly ver Spain, Portugal,Holland, FranceandEngland. n Englandat the end of the 17th century, heyarrive t a systematicalcombination,mbracinghecolonies, henationaldebt,themodernmodeoftaxation,and the protectionistystem. hesemethodsdepend nparton bruteforce, .g. thecolonial system.But theyall employthepower of theState,theconcentratedndorganized orceof society, o hasten,hothousefashion, heprocess ftransformationof the feudalmode ofproductionnto thecapitalistmode,and to shorten hetransi-tion. Force s themidwife f every ocietypregnantwith thenew one. It is itself neconomic owerWhilst he cotton ndustryntroduced hild-slaveryn England, t gave n theUnitedStatesa stimulus o the transformationf theearlier,moreor esspatriarchallavery,into a system f commercialxploitation.n fact, heveiled lavery fthewage-work-ers nEuropeneeded,for tspedestal, lavery ureandsimple nthenew world.We see here that, in Marx's view, the looting of the world outside Europecontributedto European economic growth. In spite of the spiriteddebatesabout how much it contributed,we have fortunately ot yet reachedthatclio-metricmelting oint where thenon-Europeanworldwill turnoutmiraculouslyto have been an economic burdenupon Europe from heverybeginning.) hatgrowth n turn affected the new ways in whichEurope continued ts develop-mental efforts lsewhere. But in spite of the citations fromMarx, it is notcompletely lear,at least to me, ust how he envisioned lavery and particular-ly plantationslavery, orthe productionof agricultural ommoditiesforEuro-pean markets in his pictureof world capitalism. have suggested lsewhere8that Marx himselfmaynot have been wholly atisfiedwithhisownunderstand-ingof how "slaverypureand simple"fitwithin apitalism as whenhe refers o7* Marx,Capital, p. cit., , 775, 776, 7S5.8< SidneyW. Mintz, The So-CalledWorldSystem:Local Initiative nd Local Response,"DialecticalAnthropology,I, 4, Nov. 1977, 253-70.


6/19

WasthePlantation lave a Proletarian? 85plantationowners n America as capitalistswho "exist as anomalies withinaworldmarket ased on free abor"9 - but I do notwishto pursuethisexegeticalproblemfurther.Indeed,mytask as I understand t must be to concentrate n the Caribbeanregion,on the plantation systemthat developed within t, on the natureofslavery s theprincipal orm flabor exactionovernearlyfour enturies, nd onthe linkagesbetweenslavery nd other forms f labor in thesameregion. willnot, that is, seek to counterposedefinitions f slavesand proletariansn somespecified poch, n order o see to what extentthey re similar r different. uchan undertakingmightbe usefulwithinnarrow imits; ut I would rather oncen-trateon thenature of slaveryncertain pecifichistorical nstances o give omeidea of its character nd variation, gainstwhich notionsof theproletariat ndofproletariansmight henbe silhouetted.In a recentessay,10 I have hypothesizedwhy slaveryturnedout to be soappropriate solutionto the aborproblem n theCaribbeanregion, eginning searlyas the dawn of the sixteenth entury,nd disappearing ompletely nly nthedusk of the nineteenth. t is notnecessary o repeattheargument ere,but Ido need to make severalpoints in passing, o advancemywiderpresentation.First, he history f Caribbean laverywasusuallymarkedby theaccompanyingpresenceof otherforms f labor exaction,frequentlyn the same industryndevenon the selfsame nterprises. hat is,onlyfor ertainperiods, nd in certaincolonies,did slaveryfunction s the sole form f land-laborrelationship n theplantations. Second, the other formsof labor exaction which accompaniedslavery ll seem to have nvolved arying egrees fcoercion,though he aborersthemselves ere nmost suchcases "free"by conventional efinition.For presentpurposes, I would schematizeCaribbean plantation and slavehistory s fallingwithin iveperiods:a) the firstHispanic sugar-caneplantations n the Caribbean, ocated on theGreaterAntilles,ca. 1500-1580, manned with enslaved aborigines, nd en-slavedand importedAfricans;b) the first ritish nd French ugar-cane lantationsn theCaribbean, ocated inthe Lesser Antilles, a. 1640-1670, manned with enslavedaborigines, uro-pean indentured ervants,nd enslavedAfricans;c) British nd Frenchplantationsbased exclusively n enslavedAfricanabor,attheir pogee in EnglishJamaica (post-1655) and FrenchSt. Domingue post-1697);d) a new stageof Hispanicsugar-cane lantations, gain on the GreaterAntilles(now only Cuba and PuertoRico), ca. 1770*1870, based on enslaved,"con-tracted" nd coerced abor;e) plantationsbased on free nd "contracted" abor,successively hroughouthesugar colonies after emancipation (post-1838, British;post- 848, French;post-1876,PuertoRico; post-1886,Cuba, etc.).This five-partchemacould be carriedforwardnto thepresent y theadditionof at least two otherstages the emergence f a "genuine"ruralproletariat,nd

9' KarlMarx,GrundrisseLondon: Penguin ooks,1973), 523.Mintz, p. cit.


7/19

86 SidneyW.Mintzthen ts eliminationwithprogressivemechanization); nd ofcourse, t shouldbeelaborated and detailed far morefully. ts principal sefulness ere, believe asin myreviewofWallerstein's odern World ystem,where first roposed t),1is to indicate how labor forms therthanslaverywereusuallycombinedwithslaverytself,npractice.These different orms f labor exaction,existingfor themostpart ncombi-nation in Caribbean history,were not interchangeable, ach representingvariantresponse to labor needs; nor was it accidental or randomthat theyusuallyoccurred n combinedform, nswering eeds for aborthatcould notbemostconveniently r profitablymetby usingone or anotherform xclusively.Padgughas argued eloquently againstthe notion that such formswere freelyinterchangeable,houghhe concedesthat somesubstitutabilityas possible:

There can be no doubt that,to a certaindegree, his view is correct.The post-emancipationAmerican ystems, orexample,were indeedable to convert o othersystems f labor without osingtheir osition n worldmarkets. ut thattheywereable to do this was not in fact function f theabsolute nterchangeabilityf laborsystems, ut rather f the dominance f capitalismn theworld, dominancewhichcreated ndkept nopration major ystem fcommodity roductionndexchange,and which ould convert o its own use severalmoreprimitiveystems f abor,whichotherwisewould have been by themselvesncapableof sustaining commodity ys-tem. . .The apparent nterchangeabilityf labor systems t particularhistoricalmomentsparadoxically xists,therefore,nlybecause of thepeculiarnature f thedominantlabor form, formwhich n terms f dominance s not at all interchangeable ithotherforms. hat this hould be so oughtnot tobe surprising.orslavery,ike othermodesofproduction, as particularharacteristicsndparticularffects hichdiffer-entiate tfrom ll othermodes.And atpointswhere t spreciselyhose haracteristicsand effectswhichdominate he entire ocio-economic ormationr which redecisivefor ts functioningas,for xample, ntheperiodwhen laveryn the Americas rovedto be theonlysystem apable of providingabor nsufficientuantities o enablethecoloniesto be tiedto theworld), t is not all interchangeable ith othermodes. t istruethatMarxtends o lump laverynd serfdomogethern occasionas iftheywereinterchangeable,ut this s onlyvis--vis age-labor,nd sonlymeant odemonstratethevast differences hich xist between ll pre-capitalistaborrelationshipsnd thecapitalist ne.*

" nid.Robert A. Padgug, Problems n die theory fslaveryndslave ociety/' cience ndSociety,XL,1, Spr. 1976, 24-25. Padgug's se of the. erm pre-capitalist**,nderwhichhe places slavery nd "otherpre-capitalist ormations. . the real division being] betweencapitalism nd all earlier ocio-economicformations,"an be seriously uestioned n several rounds.AsTomichpoints ut nPrelude oEmancipa-tion: Sugar and Slavery in Martinique,1830-1848, (unpubl. Ph.D. dissertation;Univ. of Wisconsin,Madison,1976) and in "Some FurtherReflections n Class and Class-conflictn theWorld-Economy,**(Seminar , Working apers,FcrnandBraudelCenter,Dec 1, 1976,mimeo),plantation laveryn the NewWorldwas nno sense"pre-capitalist",ut a very pecific roduct fevolving apitalism."Negro slavery which s besides ncompatiblewith thedevelopment fbourgeois ociety nd disap-pearswith t,presupposeswage abor,and if other free tateswithwage abordidnot exist longsidet, f,instead heNegro tateswere solated, hen ll social conditions herewould mmediatelyurnntopre-civi-lized forms.**Marx, Grundrisse,p. cit., 224). It is essential o drawanalyticaldistinctions etweendifferentbstracted tages n thehistory f capitalism, nd to explorethe differencesetween o-calledmerchantapitaland industrial apital.But tdoesnot follow nevitablyhat laverywas coterminous ith


8/19

Wasthe Plantation lavea Proletarian? 87Indeed, the historyof Caribbean plantationsdoes not show a clear breakbetween a slave mode of productionand a capitalistmode of production,butsomething uite different. he successionof differentmixesof forms f laborexaction in specific nstancesrevealsclearlyhow theplantation ystems f dif-ferentCaribbean societies developed as partsof a worldwidecapitalism,eachparticular ase indicating ow variantmeans wereemployedto provide dequatelabor,some successful nd somenot,all within n international ivision f labortransformedy capitalism, nd to satisfy n internationalmarket reatedby thatsamecapitalist ystem.My divisionof Caribbeanplantation abor history nto fiveperiods, exceptinsofar as these can be vouchsafedby legislative which is to say, politicallydocumentable) tipulations s to the laws intendedto regulate heemploymentand care of laborersof different ategories, re quite arbitrarynd imperfect.Yet they at least may suggest n some ways theprogression f forms f laborexaction or, more precisely, he progression f mixturesof labor exaction, ncertainselected cases. We move back and forthhere,between some specifichistorical ituation,more or less describable n termsof a dominantmode ofproduction and certain subsidiary, omplementary r subordinate but inter-dependentmodes, and an abstract, historical haracterization, seful forhelp-ingus to understand ll instancesof concrete nd theparticularmorefully.Formypresentpurposes, tmaybe sufficient o defend his ssertionwitha sketchycomparison f two differentases.Cuba and PuertoRico, both Spanish colonies,beganperiodsof renewed ndrapid plantation expansion dating a few decades apart. In Cuba, the English

occupationof Havana fornearlya fullyear (1762-63) markedtheopeningof anew epoch; in PuertoRico, though tirringsf new developments redatedtheevent, he "reforms"of 1809 were the turning-point.n PuertoRico, theprimemoverwas legislative,not military;but the legislative rocess was forcedbywider economic pressures,mmediately ollowing he loss of all Spanish poweron the Latin Americanmainland,and soon afterthe Haitian Revolutionhaddestroyedthe world'sgreatest ugar-producingolony. In Cuba, the British etmanylocal economic and political forces n motionby their nvasion.13Cuba,which was morethanten times arger hanPuertoRico, richer nd morepopu-lous, and withconsiderably reater nfluence n themetropolis, oughtto solveits plantation abor problemwith moreenslavedAfricans, nd the importationrates n the decades following 762 werehorrifyinglyigh.Even after pain hadsigned an accord with Britainnot to importmore slaves to its New Worldpossessions, he importations ontinued,well past the middleof the nineteenthcentury.one stage only n the worlddevelopment f capitalism, nd surelynot that twas pre-capitalistn nature.BecauseMarxists pproachthehistorical tudyof capitalism rom n evolutionaryerspective,t s under-standable butno less nerror, wouldargue) hat hey ometimesonfuse on-capitalist ith re-capitalistsocial formations. arx himself ppearsto have understood hedifferencelearly. he title f thebookbyHindess ndHirst, re-Capitalist odesofProductionLondon: Routledge& KeganPaul,1975), strikesmeasbeing rroneous or he ame reasons.1S* See ManuelMorenoFraginals, l JngenioLa Habana,1964), 5 ff.


9/19

88 SidneyW.MintzBut enslaved African abor never ufficed or heCuban planters f the times.To increase even morethe available labor supply,they wrungfrom he Crownthe right to importChinese contract labor, and imported,duringa periodstretching ut more than half a century,fromthe heightof the plantationsystem o well after mancipation, erhapsas manyas 135,000 Chinese.These"contract" laborerswere not slaves,norcould theybe said to have been entirely"free",though heywerecertainly ree as opposed to enslaved)by conventionalstandards of the time. Knighthas cause, it seems to me, for claimingthat"Chinese labor in Cuba in the nineteenth enturywas slavery n everysocialaspect except thename."14 But the statusof these laborerswas not inherited;therewere no international reaties gainst heir mportation;nd thereroles ontheplantationswere not at all precisely hose of theslaves.15Aimespointsoutthatthe largeestatesof the mid-nineteenthentury ad mixed aborsuppliesofChinese contract aborers nd African laves.16 "Not one of thegiant ngenioscomposed theirstockentirely f negroes,"he tells us. The gradualadditionofChinese contract laborers to the slave labor forceplayed a particularpart in"easing the transition" to use theeuphemismmost common ndescribinghisprocess n the Caribbean- from lavery o freedom. The industries fCuba,"Aimes writes,"were in an evolutionary tage between slave labour and freelabour, and in this change the great ngenioswere takingthe lead. Their firstcontributionwas in the economyof abour effected hrough etter rganizationand improvedmachinery, nd theirsecond, in replacinghalf of the slavesbycoolies."17 I shall not attempthere to detail the rationalefor thisparticularprocessof modernization; uffice t to say that what occurred n Cuba was, on

the one hand,consistentwiththe universal eplacement f slave aborby free nthe nineteenth entury, nd on the other,distinctivelynd uniquelyCuban insomeregards.Puerto Rico, the smaller,poorer, less influential sland, entering nto therenewedexpansionof the sugar ndustryomewhatmoretardily, ad no luckinits efforts o influencethe SpanishCrownto permit he importation f Asiancontract abor. It possessed,however, notherpotential ource of labor which tsucceeded in tappingby legislative hicanery.The "reforms"of Don RamonPower y Giraltachieved before the Corts in 1809, made it possible for thePuerto Rican government o force onto the plantationfreeborn ut landlessPuerto Ricans, on the elegant groundsthat, being landless, they were "va-grants".1 These measures pproximately oubled the available labor forcefor* FranklinW. Knight, lave Society n Cuba DuringtheNineteenth enturyMadison: Univ. ofWisconsin, 970), 119.' See also DeniseHelly,Histoire esgens anshistoire:esChinoisMacao Cuba (inpress).

16* See HubertH. S. Aimes,Slavery n Cuba, 1511-1868 (New York: G. P. Putnam's ons, 1907),212-13.17 Ibid., 213.

See my "The Role of Forced Labour in Nineteenth entury uertoRico/' CaribbeanHistoricalReview, I, 1951, 134-41;"Labor andSugar n PuertoRico andJamaica,1 00-1 50," Comparativetudiesin Societyand History, , 3, Mar. 1959, 273-81; and CaribbeanTransformationsChicago:Aldine,1974).


10/19

Was hePlantationlave Proletarian? 89theplantations;ndthoughuerto ico'snineteenth-centuryugarndustryasverymodest,omparedo Cuba's, nfact tsregimentedroleworkerslayedroleneatly nalogouso that layed ytheChinesenCuba.In thesetwo cases,we see at once thesignificancef theparticularndspecific,nd thegeneral ule achcase substantiates.hat rule s thatformsfCaribbean lantationabor xactionwerenot nterchangeable,nd that laveryrarelyccurrednabsolutelyure orm.t ismy ontentionhat indingsf thissortthrow ome ight n thegeneral uestion s to whetherhecategories"slave" nd"proletarian"anbe viewed sthe ame, imilar,r bestunderstoodonlyby contrast. intend o enlargen thisgeneral oint t greaterengthnanotherublication,o that t neednotbedeveloped urtherere. etme, hen,returnrieflyomy stages" o suggestomethingfthedifferentharacterfeach.Thefirst evelopmentsf thesugar ndustryn theHispanic reater ntillesinvolvedarly mportationsf enslavedAfricans, howereusedas laborersalongside nslavedNativeAmericans,n theplantations.hesedevelopmentshadno significantong-rangemplicationsor heEuropean ugarmarket;n-deed,theearlyplantationsf thisperioddisappearedn somecases,and ex-ported eclining uantitiesfsugar, or hemostpart, fter hemiddle fthesixteenthentury. houghwe lack adequatedetails,t seemsthatthe aborarrangementsor nslaved fricansnd NativeAmericansn these arly stateswere n factquitedifferent,mericanndianswere upposedlycommended"(encomendados), statusvaguely esemblingnfeoffment,nd based uponEuropean ractices a source f egal tatus.ncontrast,nslaved fricans ereknownobe,andrecognizeds,slaves,ubject o differentegal onceptionsndlaws.Grantinghat egalprescriptionsrea poorguide o actualbehavior,t isnonethelesshe case that hisfirst eriod fCaribbean lantation istoryoesnot eem o havebeen characterizedya uniformlave ode for ts aborforce.The developmentfmoremodern lantationsntheLesserAntilles ytheBritishnd Frenchnvolved, irst,heuseofindentureduropeans,nd ater,the mportationf ever-increasingumbersf enslavedAfricans.Therewerealso some nslaved ativeAmericanssedas laboron these lantations.)nceagain,we find mixof labor-exactionorms,ubject o differentsages ndinterpretations.nlyafter hemiddle f the seventeenthenturyoes Africanslave aborbegin o prevail;nd thereafterndentureduropeanaborplays never-decliningole n theLesserAntilles.Only nthe third eriod,when arge-scalelantations ere ully evelopednJamaica nd French t. Domingue which s to say,at the zenith f theslave-basedystemnthe ighteenthentury didtheplantationaborforceinthese wocolonies,t least) ventuatenbeing xclusivelyfricannd enslaved.It bearsnoting hat n neitherase was thisfor ongthe norm.Jamaicawasredevelopeds a plantationolony ytheEnglishfterts nvasionn1655, ndbecame ignificants such nlywell nto he ighteenthentury.etbythefirstdecadeof the nineteenthentury,heJamaican ugar ndustry as in somedifficulty,ndemancipationame n 1834-38. t. DominguewasdevelopedytheFrenchs a plantationolony venbefore hewesternhirdf the sland fEspanolawasceded o themn1697;buttheplantationystemidnotreachtszenith hereuntiltheeighteenthentury. ndby theeighth ecade of that


11/19

90 SidneyW.Mintzcentury, he Revolution was readyto explode upon thecolony. In otherwords,the epoch of "pure slavery" n these two colonies, the most lucrativen Euro-pean history,was in each case less thana centurynlength.In the fourth o-calledperiod,Cuba and PuertoRico developedtheir enewedsugar ndustries n a slave and forced-labor asis; since I have referredo thesecases already,however,no moreneed be added here,except to underline nceagainthemixedcharacter f thesystem f abor-exaction.Finally,a wordmaybe offered oncerning he"transitional" eriodfollowingformalemancipation. n the case of Cuba, as we have seen, Chinesecontractlabor "eased the transition"to freedom. But in many other instances, t wasnecessary o destroy hebargaining owerof thenewlyfreed n order o approx-imate conditionsof coercion sufficientlyontinuous withslavery o make theplantation systemworthwhilefor those who underwrote t. Hence the periodfollowing he comingof formalfreedomwas, in manyCaribbeancases, one ofintensified hicanery, ntimidation, nd legislative oercion, reminiscentn itsintent of the postbellumU.S. South, but nevertypifiedby the specificracistterrorism f the South. The taxes levied on Jamaican freedmen; he trickeryused to facilitate he importationof Indian contract aborersto thatcountry;the legislative evicesdeveloped to keep land out of the hands of the Guianesefreedmen; he so-called"apprenticeship ystems" mployedto immobilize abor,ostensiblywhile aborers earnedhow to befree the mportation fJavanese oSurinam- indeed, the list of differentiatedsolutions" to the"laborproblem"typicalof the post-emancipation aribbean taggers he magination,nd numbsthe reader's sense of ethicsand fairplay. It is onlyreally n theclosingdecadesof the nineteenth entury nd, in some cases, even laterthanthat,when we areable to note thedecline of legislative nd otherdevices imitingn one regard ranotherthe completelyfree movement f the laborer and the completelyfreesale of his labor as a commodity.One can argue,accordingly, hatonlywhensuch a point arrives s it possible to speak of "trueproletarians" but I wishtodefer hatpresumption,nd what tbringsnits wake.Instead,I prefer o turnto a somewhat differentubjectat thispoint,havingto do withslave labor-power, nd its significance orthe case I am seekingtomake. I have alreadysuggested hat, ike proletarians, lavesare separatedfromthemeansofproduction;but ofcourse, t isnot thattheyhavenothing ut theirlabor to sell. Rather, heyare themselves ommodities, heir abor isnot,undermostcircumstances, commoditywithin heslaveeconomy,but theproductsoftheir abor are,undermost circumstances, ommodities; heythemselvesppearto be a form fcapital,though hey re humanbeings.The cost of abor,underthese conditions:. . . appearsas a seriesof investmentsn fixed apital. . . Moreover, ince theplanterhas to bear the costs ofreproducinghe lave, ll ofthe lave's aborappears s unpaidsurplus abor forthe master.19 hewholeof the lave'sproduct s thepropertyf the

19 Rod Aya, n criticizinghe nalysis fslaverynPre-Capitalist odesofProduction yHindess ndHirst, howshow theyhavemisunderstood arx's reatment.Review nTheory ndSociety, II, 4,Winter1976, 623-29). Hindess & Hirst rgue: "For the slave all labour is surplus-labour."Op cit.y 32). Butneithers true ordid Marx ver laim t. ndeed,he isvery xplicit: The wage-formhus xtinguishesvery


12/19

WasthePlantation lavea Proletarian? 91master.Nonetheless,f theproductive ctivity f theslave s examined,t s apparentthatone partof his labor producesthe value necessary orhis subsistencend theotherpartproduces surplus.The production f this urplus s the basis of the laveeconomy,but the value of labor and the distinction etweennecessary nd surpluslabor are hiddenbythepropertyelation n slave ociety. **Slaves differfromproletariansnot only in that theyappear as a formofcapital while their abor is not a commodity, ut also because theyreceivenowages, only receivingnstead that portionof theirlabor-power hattakes theformof necessary abor, so called. Accordingly, ne could assertthatthey ieoutsidethecommodity ystemwithinwhichtheyproduce; theycannotgenerateinternal emand;and theydo not form consumermarket.This is all verywell,to theextent hat t allows us to beginto characterize heslave mode ofproduction.All that remains obe done,however, s tomovefromsuchpostulates o theeveryday ealities fslave ife on Caribbeanplantations. ndoing so, our graspof the slave system nevitably ecomes morecomplicated,even as it becomes more nuanced. The cost of slave labor appears,Tomichstresses, as a seriesof investmentsn fixedcapital (housing,food, clothing,etc.) . . . [while] all of the slave's labor appearsas unpaid surplus abor forthemaster."21Maintenanceduring he effective roductive eriodofthe slave's ife(and, indeed,oftenthereafter) epresents quite differentost from hatrepre-sented by the originaloutlay - the purchase price - by which his owneracquiresexclusive ccess to his labor-power.Not calculatedas a partof maintenance s the cost of coercionwhich, nmyview,deservesmentionnot ust because itwas an important artofthereality fslavelife,but also because I believe that t mesheswith theproblemof mainte-nance, and in curiousways. would be inclined o argue hat thesetwodifferentsortsof running xpense,maintenanceon the one hand and coercion on theother, can cancel each other out, as it were, under certainconditions. Theprincipal ong-termupply-cost fmaintaininghe slavewas, believe,nutrition.In the slavecodes of theCaribbean, lave nutrition suallyfiguredmportantly,codes oftenspecifyinghe kinds and quantitiesof food with whichslavesweresupposed to be supplied. Indeed, the provisionof adequate food was a primepreoccupationof Caribbean slave systems, nd we neednot look to altruism orexplanation.Debbasch, in his monograph n marronagenSt. Domingue, rguesthat inadequate food was probablya principalcause of slave flight rom the

trace of the division f theworking-daynto necessaryabour and surplus-labour,ntopaid and unpaidlabour.All labourappearsas paid labour. n thecorve, he abourof theworker orhimself,nd hiscom-pulsoryabour forhis lord,differn space and time n the clearest ossibleway. n slave-labour,venthatpartof the working-dayn which the slave s only replacing hevalueofhis own meansof existence,nwhich, herefore,n fact,he works orhimselflone,appears s labourforhismaster.All theslave's abourappears s unpaid abour. n wage-labour,n thecontrary,ven urplus-labour,runpaid abour, ppear spaid. Theretheproperty elation oncealsthe abour of the lave forhimself; ere hemoney-relationon-ceals theunrequitedabourof thewage-labourer.*'Capital, p. cit., , 550).Tomich, relude oEmancipation, p. cit.t140-41. au.


13/19

92 SidneyW.Mintzplantationsthere.22 Yet we immediately ee here certain contradictions.Theimportation f food was always expensive.The slavesystems in theirnature, tappears) tended to eliminate the local productionof commoditiesotherthanthose (sugar, coffee, indigo, or whatever)produced on the plantations forexport.What is more,plantationsystemsalso tended to eliminatefree mall-scale producers,as happened over and over again in the Lesser Antilles,assugar-canend slavery rew.In many cases the planters,faced by these contradictions, ought to solvethemby usingsome partof the slave labor force to produce food.Havingdealtat lengthwith thissubject elsewhere,23 do not wishto dwellupon ithere;buta few points in passingmay be useful. First, t is noteworthy hat the slaveeconomies,both directly nd indirectly,timulated heexchangeof foodplantsbetween the Old World and theNew. The most famousparticular ase, by nomeans unique, was the commissioning f Capt. Blighby theJamaica Assemblyto bring he breadfruit romOceania to that sland.Thoughmutiny hwarted isfirst ttempt,Blighwas successfulon hissecond,and the breadfruit id becomean important ource ofslave subsistence. econd, it deservesnote inpassing hatboth theagriculturend thecuisineofthecontemporary aribbeanregionmani-fest the interblending f numerous differentmajor traditions, mong themAfrican,Asian, European, and Native American;thiscontemporary icture s,however, enturies ld, for the mostpart, nd a byproduct f the economicanddemographic istory f the Caribbeanregion.Third, t needsto be stressed hata verysubstantialpart of the slaves' subsistencewas, in fact,producedby theslaves themselves, nd that in many cases the slaves also produced a goodlymeasureof the subsistence fthe freepopulationsofplantation ocieties. t is tothese atter wopointsthat wish to devotea littlemoreattention.In compellingor permittinghe slaves to grow subsistence,plantershad tobalance the value of land put in sugar-cane against its value in food crops.Normally, pland or poorertractswereused forsubsistence ultivation, xcepton those islandsso poor or drythat land could not be made available forsuchcultivation. t was necessaryas well for the planters o balance the slave laborpowerused on theplantations gainst tsyield fput intosubsistence ultivation.Here,once again,the solution wherepossiblewas to use theveryyoungand theveryold, as well as the adult and ablebodied, and to confinesuch labor to theperiodswhen work in the sugar-cane ieldswas less needed. In balancing aboruse, a common solution was to leave the slave Sunday and an additionalhalf-day, at least during he so-called"dead time",for heproductionof foodstuffs.Eventhis rrangement,owever, ontainedcontradictorylementswithin t.That these werenot without theircomical side is suggested y theargumentsof Mr. Edward Long, a pro-slavery igure s eloquent as he was virulent,n histwo-volumeHistoryofJamaica. Long's loyaltieswere at timesconfusedby the

99 Sec YvonDebbasch, Le marronnage:ssai ur a dsertion e l'esclave ntillais/' 'annesociologi-que, 1961,1-112;1962, 117-95.23* E.g., "Currency roblems n Eighteenth entury amaicaandGresham's aw," in R. Manners, d.,Process nd PatternnCultureChicago:Univ.ofChicagoPress, 964), 248-65;and CaribbeanTransforma-tions, p. cit.


14/19

Was hePlantationlave Proletarian? 93circumstancesf slave abor nJamaica,where lavesweregrantedt thetimeeachSunday nd another alf-dayffn order o work n their ubsistencelotsandgo to the market. he slavesof Christianseceived 6 daysperyearfreefrom lantationabor except n cases ofvery rgent usiness), hichncludedeveryunday ndnormallyalf fevery aturday.heslaves fJews owever,receivedt least111 daysperyearfor hemselves,ecause heJewshad moreholidayshan heChristians.Long calculatedhow these additional aysnot only mprovedheslaves'morale, ut also increasedignificantlyheir bility o accumulate apitalforthemselves.uthe recognizedhatfewChristiansereChristiannoughogivetheir laves wo free aysperweek.At the ametime, incemarketsad to beheldon Sunday, heonlydayon which hemajorityf the laveswasentirelyfree,he arger art f themarketradewasengrossedyJewishmerchants hocould workon Sunday, nlike he Christian erchants.n order orChristianshopkeeperso competewith heJewsfor he laves' ustom,hemarket ayought o have beenchanged o someday other han unday.Yet thatwouldhavemeant significantossof abor o Christianlave wners. ong rgues oradding hursdays a freeday, o Sunday, othto improvehe slaves'moraleand to afford hristianhopkeepersfirmerurchasen thebuying ower fthe laves.He evenpoints utthepotential alueofreligiousducation or heslaveson Sundays, uoting notherwriter. On thisday somepainsshouldcertainlye taken o nstructhem othebestoftheiromprehension,speciallythe children,n some of the principlesf religionndvirtue particularlyhumility,ubmission,ndhonesty hich ecome heir ondition."24 utLongsounds ather alf-heartedere;perhaps e knewhisChristiansoowell.TheeliminationfSundaymarketsnly ameabout n 1838,with otal mancipa-tion.Though herewascertainlyn elementfcompulsionnthe nitiationfthisform f work, n which laves devoted day and one-half erweekto thecultivationftheir wn foodplots,we nonethelesseevery arlyn thehistoryofbothJamaicandSt.Dominguethe asesforwhich he nformationeems obe richest) hatthe nstitutionoon becameone which he slaves hemselvespreferred.think hisdevelopmentas ofgreatmportance.t revealsimultan-eously whole eries fcontradictionsr nconsistenciesmplicit,think,ntheslavemodeofproduction,ndpoints o somereservationshat feel bout heconcept tself. et me try o enumerateome spects fthis ontradiction,rinconsistency.First fall,thedevelopmentf foodcultivationutside heslaveryegimenran ntirelyountero thewhole onceptionfhowthe lavemodeofproduc-tionwassupposed o operate.t meant,boveall,that laveswere ble to workwithoutupervision.econdly,tmade tpossible, and believe hattwastheonly ircumstanceithin heplantationrameworknwhich hiswastrue)forslaves o work ngroups f their wnchoosing normallynfamilyroups,ojudgeby the descriptions e have.Thirdly,t permittedhe slaves o makecalculations what heywouldgrow,ndhowmuch thatnotonlynourished

EdwardLong,History f Jamaica London: T. Lowndcs,1774), I, 491-92.


15/19

94 SidneyW.Mtntztheirown sense of autonomy,but also musthave permitted demonstrationwithin he slavegroup tself f individual ifferentiation a differentiationhatdid not depend upon the whimof the master.Fourthly and this omes out inthe record, too, particularly n the reportsof travellers it dramatizedthenature fthe slaveregimen,nd thehumanity f theslaves, o anyone ntelligentenough to make the inferences.That these people, seemingly o sodden andstupid and dull, incapable of the simplest perationswhencutting ane, couldturnout to be lively, ntelligent, nd evenhappywhenworking n theirownplots, amazed the planters.But foreigners travellers had no difficultynunderstandingwhat the differencewas. Moreover,subsistencecultivationbyslaves had consequencesof evenwider ignificance.n bothJamaicaand inHaiti,and inpractically ll Antillean ocietieswhere ultivation f thiskinddeveloped,this institutioned to productionthat was not fordirectuse. Indeed, it led tomorethansimply he productionof foodwhichtheproducers hemselvesmightconsume. Thus the slaves were able to transform hathad begunas a coerciveform nto something lse: when a slave sold part of his own production, hismeanta "radical breach" in the slave mode ofproduction.25The conceptof themode depends, as does that of the capitalistmode, on the separationof theworkerfrom hemeansofproduction.When he slaveproducesfood forhimselfand his familyhe is addingdirect-use roduction o theeconomicpictureof hisstructural osition.And when he adds the sale of his own product,he addsyetanother,somewhat contradictory lementto the realityof Antilleanslavery.When he buys,withthemoneyhe earnsby selling, e adds yetanother lementof a contradictory ind. And when - as was the case in these societies- heprovisions he freeclasses withinslave society,this adds yet another uch ele-ment.26

* TheexpressionwasapparentlyoinedbyT. Lepkowski, ndappears nhisHaiti,Vol. I (La Habana,1968). It is also employed by Ciro F. S. Cardoso in his interestingaper, "La brechaen el sistemaesclavista" ms.,1977). But the dea thatCaribbean laves houldnotsuffer heterminologicalonfinementto whichsome scholarshad consigned hemgoes back a good deal further;ongbeforethe twentiethcentury, bservers oted that lavesand runaways othhad done much o alter henature fslaverytself,and to produce reality hemasters ad neither ntendednor calculatedupon. I have treated hismattermorefullyn: CaribbeanTransformations,p. cit.;"Towardah Afro merican istory/*ahiers 'HistoireMondiale,XIII, 2, 1971, 317-32); and,withRichardPrice, nAn Anthropological pproachto theAfro-American ast: A Caribbean erspective,shi OccasionalPapers n Social Change (Philadelphia:nstitutefor the Study of Human Issues Press, 1976). NeitherCardoso nor Lepkowski,however,views these"breaches" in the slave system s requiringnyrevision n theconceptof a slave mode ofproduction.remain little nsure.* That one mode ofproduction s dominant ver othermodeswithin hesame formation;hatthecoexistenceof suchmodes s entirely o be expectedand that theconceptof mode of productions notintendednor expectedto be identical with nyparticular, n-the-groundeality, re assertions enerallyaccepted by Marxist cholars, believe.But tdoes notseemto me to be useful o treat articular istoricalinstances s irrelevanto our understandingf what the ideal-typemode of production onsists n, andrepresents. or do I find t usefulto seek to explainwhatmightmistakenlye perceived s exceptions,irregularities,r freak nstances s being"transitional**henomena.Thispartof theargument elates, ntheone hand,to old-fashioned ispositions o describe oncretehistorical asesas examples f"feudal**r"slave** tagesof evolution ut offfrom vents lsewhere n the capitalistworld, nd, on theother, oignorethose veryconcreteparticulars hat enable us to grasppreciselywhat the term contradiction**means, n understandingetterhow social formations,nd their omponentmodesofproduction,hangeover ime.


16/19

Was thePlantation lave a Proletarian? 95One may say in responseto thisthat,while thecase complicatesour under-standing,t does not affect he nature of the mode ofproduction, r our meansforconceptualizing t. Nonetheless, thinkwe must tryto specifywhat,pre-cisely, shappening ere.Moreaude St.-Mryone ofthemostthorough bserversof prerevolutionaryt. Domingue, tells us in a beautifulpassage that, in themarketplaceof Clugny, n Cap Franois (today's Cap Hatien), in the yearsimmediately recedingthe revolution, 5,000 slavescame each Sunday to buyand sell.27 Again, nJamaica,we knowthatthe firstmarketplacewas establishedin 1662, only seven years afterthe conquest of Jamaica by the British, ndwas followedby hundredsof others. EdwardLong tellsus that, n the ate 18thcentury, 0% of the metalliccurrencynJamaica at thattime was in thehandsof the slaves who sold to each other,to theirmasters, o thefreepopulationofthe towns, and - a fact that would be funny f it werenot so tragic to thegarrisonsfBritish oldiersmaintained nJamaicato controlthe slaves.Now, if one leaves aside the significance f cultivation ndmarketing or nyelegant theoryof mode of production, onsideringt only in terms f itsevery-day meaning, think t leads to at least threepoints.First his nstitution uts ndoubt any economic formulation hatbases itself urelyon commodity roduc-tion in interpretingntillean lavesociety.Second, it raisesquestionsabout anymonolithic definitionor explanation of what constitutesresistance.The waythat I have couched thisbefore- and one can thinkof otherexamples - thecook of the master'sfamily, hat faithfulady who preparedthe meals threetimes day,sometimes utgroundglass n the foodofher diners.But she had tobecome the cook before this optionbecame available. What mean to say, of

course, is that the concept of resistance s.reallyverycomplicated, deologicalconsiderations side. Third,the institutions f slave cultivation nd marketingcan help to throw light upon the historical equences fromslaveryto otherformsof labor exaction - though believe that neither the researchnor thethinking eeded to reveal the fullmeaningof these institutions as takenplaceso far. There is somethingn humanhistoryikeretribution,"Marx haswritten,"and it is a rule of historical etributionhat ts nstrumente forgednotby theoffendedbut by the offenderhimself."28Nothingelse duringthe historyofCaribbean slaverywas as important s marketing nd provisioncultivation nmakingit possible for the freeperson - in the case of Haiti, the successfulrevolutionary to adapt to freedomwithouttheblessings f the formermas-ters.But of course the processwas in no sense a simpleone, and both slavesandmastersknew t:The practicewhichprevailsnJamaicaof giving heNegroes ands to cultivate, romtheproduceof whichtheyare expectedto maintain hemselvesexcept n timesofscarcity,rising rom urricanesnddroughts, hen ssistance s never eniedthem) s27* See Louis Moreau de St. Mcry, escription opographique,hysique, ivile, olitique, thistoriquede la partiefranaise e VisleSaint-DomingueParis: Socit d l'histoire es coloniesfranaises, 958), I,433.28* KarlMarx, The IndianRevolt,"New YorkTribune, ept. 16, 1857, in S. Avineri,d.,KarlMarxon Colonialism nd ModernizationGardenCity,N.Y.: DoubledayAnchor, 969), 224.


17/19

96 SidneyW.Mintzuniversallyllowed to be judicious and beneficial; roducing happycoalitionofinterests etween the master nd the slave.The negrowhohas acquiredbyhis ownlabour a propertyn hismaster's and,has muchto lose,and s thereforeess nclinedto deserthiswork.He earns littlemoney,bywhichhe is enabledto indulge imselfin fineclotheson holidays, nd gratify ispalatewith altedmeatsand otherprovi-sions that otherwisehe could not obtain; and the proprietors eased, in a greatmeasure, f theexpenseoffeeding im.^BryanEdwards was too shrewd n observer feighteenth-centuryamaicatohave missed the mutual benefitflowingfrom these institutions or to havefailed to see how the short-termatisfactionsf independent ultivation nd salemighthave dulled long-term issatisfactionswith the realities f slavery tself.All the same, the development f such institutions ithin hecontextofslaverysuggests hat our conceptionsof freedom nd unfreedom re probablytoo nar-rowand extreme.Indeed, it is by this assertion hat return o themajoraimof thispaper: toconsider in what ways, and to what extent,the categories "proletarian"and"slave" really pproacheach other npractice. The properroleof a definition,"Ay tells us, "is to focus attentionon observables, o convertdisputation verwords ntodisagreementbout whatthey tandfor, nd thereby pen argumentsto furthernquiry, esting, nd refutation. aken by themselves," e continues,"definitions re arbitrary; hey prove' nothing.Atmostthey erve o demarcatetheproblemat issue,not to solve it. Theyarenot subjectto 'proofand demon-stration' nymore thanyou can 'prove* hat a square s a rectanglewith ll foursides equal."30 Starting romverymeagerdefinitionaltatements, havesoughtto concentrate pon slaves, eaving side anyseriouscharacterizationfproletar-

ians. Those slaves with whomI chose to deal were, s we haveseen,disposing fsome of theirown labor-power independently, n the one hand, and oftencoexistingwith representatives f other categoriesof labor exaction on theother.My aim, clearly,has not been to narrowwhatmightbe said about theslaves, o much as to broaden t.Thus, n certain egardstwould be accurate toassertthat have touched on some of theways in which theslavesparticipatedin productive ctivities ot conventionallyssociated with lavery, rnotpartoftheslave mode ofproduction.If, on the one hand, I have sought to indicate some ways in which slaveeconomic activities esembled hose of freepersons, t is also truethat wouldhave liked to have shownhow the activities f freepersons,working longsidethe slaves,were constrainedby coercion and force. have not reallydone sohere;but thenote taken ofnon-slave ategories f labor in the Caribbeanplanta-tion context was intended to make thisgeneral point.Justas slaves werenotcompletely encapsulated by the state of servitude, o those who, technicallyfree, abored at their ide werenot in factcompletelyunshackled.3 The con-29* BryanEdwards,The History,Civiland Commercial, f the BritishColonies n the West ndies(London:J. Stockdale,1793), II, 131.

Aya,Review fHindess ndHirst, p. cit.,625.* F. H. Cardoso, n criticizing eryhelpfullyn earlydraft fmyreview fWallersteinDialecticalAnthropology,p. cit.), writes: On the one hand, it does not seem to me that these new indentured


18/19

Was hePlantationlave Proletarian? 97trast etween ree ndslave,whendrawn s Marxdrewt n order odramatizethedistinctiveature fEuropean apitalism,snot ncorrect,ut xtreme,nddoes not - couldnot- take ccount fspecific istoricalonditionsneverycase.AsTomich asasserted,whileMarx tressed he mportancefthe api-talistworld-economyor nderstandingew Worldlavery,e never xplicitlydeveloped theoryf slave conomies,nd thequestion f the ocialforms fslaveproductions notsystematicallyreatedn hiswork."32Padgugmakesdifferent,utrelated,ointwhenhewrites:It istrue hatMarx ends o umpslaverynd serfdomogethern occasion s iftheywere nterchangeable,utthis s onlyvis--vis age abor,and is onlymeant o demonstratehevastdifferencesetween llpre-capitalistsic] laborrelationshipsnd thecapitalistone."33

I do not meanto suggest y these itationshat believe hefundamentaleconomic ifferenceetween aribbean lantationlaves ndEuropean actoryproletariansan be abandoned y simple ecourse o thetheme ftheglobalworld-economy.do believe, owever,hatWallerstein'snsistences ustifiable,that ocalformsf abor anbe made nalytically ore omprehensibleypriorreferenceotheworld-economy:The point s thatthe"relations fproductions*'hatdefine system rethe "rela-tions of production" f thewholesystem, nd thesystem t thispoint n time thesixteenth entury] s the Europeanworld-economy. ree labor is indeed a definingfeature f capitalism, utnot free aborthroughoutheproductive nterprises. reelabor is the form f labor control used forskilledwork n core countrieswhereascoerced abor sused for essskilledwork nperipheralreas.The combination hereofistheessenceofcapitalism.3*Putotherwise,t is notanalytically ost seful odefineitherproletarian"or "slave" n isolation,incethese wo vastcategoriesf toilerwere ctuallylinkedntimatelyytheworld conomyhathad, s twere, iven irthothemboth,n theirmodernorm. havenot imedhere tassimilatingitherategory

servants' romChina, ndia orJavacould be thought f as free yanyonemaking consideredudgement.On the other, bolitiondid not mean to anyonethe passage to a typicalcapitalist ystemnregard oproductiveelations,ince laverywasreplacedby sharecroppingnd similar rrangements,hich epresent-ed a high evel of personaldependence, ncluding xtra-economic oercion. believe this s one of theclearest cases of the formal ubjectionof non-capitalist orms f labor to a clearly apitalistprocess,thereby reventingnternalpportunitiesorpreexistingtructures productive orces, ormsnd evels faccumulation,nd a whole historical ontext from espondingifferentlyo new nfluences f the worldmarket. . . For me .. thisreveals henecessity fanalyzing,ntransitionsf this ort, hecontradictions[arising rom]the confluence f external nd internal forces*'personal orrespondence, y translation).While agree ntirely,believe hat hese ontradictions ust aise ontinuinguestions fa theoreticalnature boutthecategorieshemselves"proletarian", slave") and theadjectives "free", unfree")weuseto describe hem. The contradictionsre both a cause and an outcomeof specific nd particular ircum-stances hat hould ffect he nature f ourcategories.t is thecategorieswhich re abstract.

o o Tomich, relude oEmancipation, p. cit.y 38.3S- Padgug, p. ciu 24-25.34* ImmanuelWallerstcin,he ModernWorld-System:apitalistAgriculturend theOrigins f theEuropeanWorld-Economyn theSixteenth enturyNewYork:AcademicPress, 974), 27.


19/19

98 SidneyW.Mintzto the other,but at suggestingnsteadwhya purelydefinitionalpproach eavessomething o be desired. I shall not attemptto broach a related theme- thespecific conomic linkagesbetweenEuropean proletarians nd Caribbeanslavesthroughthe products of their labor - which deservesseparate and detailedtreatment n its own right.But it maybe appropriate o concludeby suggestingthat both the similarities nd differences etweenthese abstract ategorieswillbecomemuchclearer, nce those inkageshavebecome fully xposed.

slave proletarian

Documents