Research Foundation of SUNY
Was the Plantation Slave a Proletarian?
Author(s): Sidney W. Mintz
Source: Review (Fernand Braudel Center), Vol. 2, No. 1 (Summer, 1978), pp. 81-98
Published by: Research Foundation of SUNY for and on behalf of the Fernand Braudel Center
Stable 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 SUNY and Fernand Braudel Center are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Review (Fernand Braudel Center).
http://www.jstor.org
Review,II, 1, Summer1978, 81-98.
Was the Plantation
Slave a Proletarian?*
SidneyW.Mintz
Between the beginningsof the Africanslave trade to the New World,shortly
after1500, and the abolition of slaveryin the last New Worldterritories
whereit
had remainedlegal (Puerto Rico: 1873-1876; Cuba: 1886; Brazil: 1888), probably more than 9,000,000 enslaved Africanswere shipped westwardacross the
Atlantic.1 The institutionembodied in the capture, sale, transportation,and
exploitationof Africanslaves in the westernhemispherethuslasted nearlyfour
hundred years, and was legal for centuries,in large and much differentiated
regionswithinthe Americas.Many differentEuropean powers were involvedin
the sale, use and, often, resale of enslaved Africans.Local practices in these
mattersvariedwidely,and wereusuallysubject to metropolitancodes of law and
metropolitanbureaucracies(though these never were the last word in regulating
the treatment,care, and defenseof the enslaved). Hence to tryto addressgenerallythe natureof slaveryas it existedin the New World,or its common features
*Firstpresentedat a seminarof the FernandBraudelCenter,State University
of New York at Binghamton,
February2, 1977, I am gratefulto ProfessorWallersteinforthe opportunityto air myviewsand, indeed,
forthechoice of topic,to whichhe askedme to addressmyself.
See PhilipA. Curtin,The AtlanticSlave Trade:A Census(Madison: Univ.of WisconsinPress,1969).
Sidney W.Mintz
82
as an institutionin the New Worldsetting,is a riskyand frequentlyunprofitable
undertaking.Not only was slaverydifferentin the colonies of one power from
what it was in those of another,but even withinone imperialsystem,therewere
often significantdifferencesin the slaveryinstitutionfromcolony to colony.
Moreover, time and circumstancedeeply affectedthe way slaveryworked in
particularmilieux. Demographymattered;as did the prevailingformof work at
which slaves were employed; whetherthe slaveswere "creolized" - seasoned to
the slaveryregimen,or born into it, acculturatedto the New Worldconditions,
or caughtup in the meaningand memoriesof a distantlife- all these,and many
otherfactors,much influencedwhat slaverywas, and how it was experienced.
In this paper, I shall attempt to limit the geographicalscope of my inquiry
and, thereby,at least some part of the economic,political,and culturalvariation
with which I mightotherwisehave to struggle,were I attemptingto look at the
whole hemisphere.But I deliberatelydo not limitthe time-spanwith which I
deal, since one of my major concernshere is the significanceof differenttimeperiods (and what those differencesentailed) for the question the paper means
to address: the relationshipbetween the termsand categories"proletarian'*and
"slave". Plainly,a numberof fairlyfirmlines need to be drawn,to avoid drowning in generalities.The term"plantationslave", as I mean to use it here,refersto
chattel slaves,persons purchased or inheritedand owned as property,who were
used as laborerson largeagriculturalestatesproducingcommoditiesfor(mainly)
European markets,between the firstdecade of the sixteenthcenturyand the
ninthdecade of the nineteenth.Nearlyall, but by no means all, such slaves were
born in Africaor were the descendants(at least in part) of people who were. By
the "Caribbean region" I have in mind in particularthe Greater and Lesser
Antilles,with an importantnod in the directionof the Guianas. I thinkthat it
would not be impossible (though it would entail extremelyburdensomedifficulties and a good deal more space) to extend the treatmentto include Brazil,
parts of Mexico and Central America, and even much of the United States
South; I deliberatelyavoid such extensions,while recognizingthatI have already
takenon too much.
I am unable to limit myselfsimilarlyin time, as I have said; nor can I avoid
the complications implicit in refiningwhat I mean by "plantation". Just as
slavery itselfvaried with place and with time, so, too, did the nature of the
enterprisesupon which slaves toiled. Plantations themselvesalso varied very
widely,accordingto a greatmany environingconditions.Perhapsit is enoughto
say for the presentthat I am here particularlyconcernedwithsugar-caneplantations, which were present throughoutthe fourcenturiesthat interestme, and
were doubtless more importantthan any other type of Caribbean plantation,
duringthisentirefour-hundred
year period.
I am not prepared to be so offhandin dealing with the term "proletarian",
but I can state briefly,at least, what I have in mindby it. In the firstvolume of
Capital9Karl Marx discussesthe buyingand sellingof labor-poweras an aspect of
the capitalistmode of production,2whereinit becomes veryclear thata "free"
laboreris not therebyand automaticallya memberof the proletariat.Indeed, as
2* Karl
Marx,Capital (New York: InternationalPubL, 1939), I, 145 ff.
Wasthe PlantationSlave a Proletarian?
83
Marx employs the term "proletariat",it is bound up quite narrowlyand specifically with the rise of capitalism,wherein "labour-powercan appear upon the
marketas a commodity,onlyif, and so faras, its possessor,the individualwhose
labour-powerit is, offersit forsale, or sells it, as a commodity."?Indeed, thatis
the firstcriterionof proletarianlabor-power.Second, by Marx's reckoning,such
a seller of labor-poweras a commoditycannot sell himself,or sell hislaborpower "once and for all/' since by so doing he would become somethingother
than a freeseller of his own effort.Third,the sellermustbe obligatedto sell his
labor, by virtue of having nothingelse either to sell, or by which to sustain
himself;he has no choice but to sell his labor-power.That a freelaborerhas
nothing to sell but his effort,that he sees and offersto sell that effortas a
commodityto its prospectivebuyer,and thathe has nothingbut his labor-power
to sell, all become partsof the definitionof the proletarian.
"We have seen," Marx writes, "that the expropriationof the mass of the
people fromthe soil formsthe basis of the capitalistmode of production;"4 and
"so-called primitiveaccumulation... is nothingelse than the historicalprocess
of divorcingthe producer fromthe means of production."5 What I referto by
"proletarian",then,consistentwith these assertions,is the freebut propertyless
sellerof his own labor-poweras a commodityto a capitalistbuyerof commodities, amongthemthe commodityof labor-power,to undertakefreshproduction.
It was never Marx's sole or explicit intention,so faras I know, to draw an
orderlycontrastbetween slaves and proletariansin order to endow these terms
with definitionsthat could become eternalverities.His concernwas above all to
understandand to reveal the inner nature of the capitalistsystem,and of the
capitalist mode of production, as these typifiedthe historyof Europe. Well
aware that he could not ignoreor treatas irrelevantthe activitiesof the Europeans outside the European heartland,he saw thatthe formsof labor exaction in
different
partsof the worldin whichthe Europeans were activeboth arose from,
and reactedback upon, developmentsin Europe itself:
Freedomand slaveryconstitutean antagonism.. . . We are not dealingwithindirect
slavery,the slaveryof the proletariat,but withdirectslavery,theslaveryof theblack
racesin Surinam,in Brazil,in thesouthernstatesof NorthAmerica.Directslaveryis as
much the pivot of our industrialism
today as machinery,credit,etc. Withoutslavery,
no cotton; withoutcotton no modernindustry.Slaveryhas giventheirvalue to the
colonies; the colonies have createdworldtrade;worldtradeis thenecessarycondition
of large-scalemachineindustry.Beforethe trafficin Negroesbegan the colonies supplied the Old Worldwithveryfewproductsand made no visiblechangein theface of
theearth.Thus slaveryis an economiccategoryof thehighestimportance.6
But his interestthroughoutremainedEurope, the pivot of what could be incited
to happen elsewhere,the beatingheart of capitalistendeavor.From thatcenter,
3*
Ibid., 1, 146.
4*
Ibid., I, 793.
5#
Ibid., I, 738.
6* Letterof Karl Marx to P. V.
Anncnkov,December28, 1846, in Karl Marx & FrederickEngels:Selected Works(New York: InternationalPubL, 1968), 13-14.
Sidney W.Mtntz
84
men, materials,and wealth flowed outward in order to integratewithin the
central design regions, populations, and resources that had lain outside and
largelyunaffectedbeforehand.Thus the expansion of European capitalisminvolved the assimilationto homeland - that is to say, to European metropolitan
- objectives, of societies and peoples that were not yet part of the capitalist
system.The ways in which this assimilationwas set in motion, and the forms
that it took were of course highlyvariable. They were not, they could not be,
identicalto those processes that had typifiedEuropean economic growth;yet it
was preciselyEuropean expansion itselfthatbroughttheseexternalareas within
the ambit of European power and economy, even if the formsof theirintegration differedradically from those familiarfrom Europe itself. In spite of his
prevailingconcernwithEurope, Marx understoodthiswell:
andentombenslavement
inAmerica,
theextirpation,
Thediscovery
of goldandsilver
oftheconquestandlooting
thebeginning
mentin minesof theaboriginal
population,
of
forthecommercial
oftheEastIndies,theturning
of Africaintoa warren
hunting
Theseidyllic
blackskins,signalized
therosydawnof theeraofcapitalist
production.
...
accumulation.
arethechiefmomenta
ofprimitive
proceedings
The different
momentaof primitiveaccumulationdistributethemselves
now, moreor
less in chronologicalorder, particularlyover Spain, Portugal,Holland, France and
England. In England at the end of the 17th century,they arriveat a systematical
combination,embracingthecolonies,thenationaldebt,themodernmode of taxation,
and the protectionistsystem.These methodsdepend in part on bruteforce,e.g. the
colonial system.But they all employ the power of the State, the concentratedand
organizedforceof society,to hasten,hothousefashion,theprocessof transformation
of the feudalmode of productioninto the capitalistmode, and to shortenthetransition. Force is the midwifeof everysocietypregnantwiththe new one. It is itselfan
economicpower
in England,it gave in the United
Whilstthe cotton industryintroducedchild-slavery
of the earlier,moreor less patriarchalslavery,
States a stimulusto the transformation
into a systemof commercialexploitation.In fact,theveiledslaveryof thewage-workersin Europeneeded, foritspedestal,slaverypure and simplein thenew world.
We see here that, in Marx's view, the looting of the world outside Europe
contributedto European economic growth. (In spite of the spiriteddebates
about how much it contributed,we have fortunatelynot yet reached that cliometricmeltingpoint where the non-Europeanworld will turnout miraculously
to have been an economic burden upon Europe fromthe verybeginning.)That
growthin turn affectedthe new ways in which Europe continued its developmental effortselsewhere. But in spite of the citations fromMarx, it is not
completelyclear, at least to me,just how he envisionedslavery and particularfor Euroof
commodities
for
the
ly plantation slavery,
production agricultural
pean markets- in his picture of world capitalism.I have suggestedelsewhere8
that Marx himselfmay not have been whollysatisfiedwithhis own understandingof how "slaverypure and simple" fitwithincapitalism as when he refersto
7*
8<
Marx,Capital,op. cit.,I, 775, 776, 7S5.
Sidney W. Mintz,"The So-CalledWorldSystem: Local Initiativeand Local Response,"Dialectical
II, 4, Nov. 1977, 253-70.
Anthropology,
Was the PlantationSlave a Proletarian?
85
plantation owners in America as capitalistswho "exist as anomalies within a
worldmarketbased on freelabor"9 - but I do not wish to pursuethisexegetical
problemfurther.
Indeed, my task as I understandit must be to concentrateon the Caribbean
region, on the plantation system that developed within it, on the nature of
slaveryas the principalformof labor exaction overnearlyfourcenturies,and on
the linkagesbetween slaveryand other formsof labor in the same region.I will
not, that is, seek to counterposedefinitionsof slaves and proletariansin some
specifiedepoch, in orderto see to what extenttheyare similaror different.Such
an undertakingmightbe usefulwithinnarrowlimits;but I would ratherconcentrateon the nature of slaveryin certainspecifichistoricalinstancesto givesome
idea of its characterand variation,againstwhich notions of the proletariatand
of proletariansmightthenbe silhouetted.
In a recent essay,10 I have hypothesizedwhy slaveryturned out to be so
appropriatea solution to thelabor problemin the Caribbeanregion,beginningas
earlyas the dawn of the sixteenthcentury,and disappearingcompletelyonly in
the dusk of the nineteenth.It is not necessaryto repeat the argumenthere,but I
do need to make several points in passing,to advance my wider presentation.
First,the historyof Caribbeanslaverywas usuallymarkedby the accompanying
presenceof other formsof labor exaction, frequentlyin the same industryand
even on the selfsameenterprises.That is, only forcertainperiods,and in certain
colonies, did slaveryfunctionas the sole formof land-laborrelationshipon the
plantations. Second, the other forms of labor exaction which accompanied
slaveryall seem to have involvedvaryingdegreesof coercion,thoughthe laborers
themselveswerein most such cases "free" by conventionaldefinition.
For present purposes, I would schematize Caribbean plantation and slave
historyas fallingwithinfiveperiods:
a) the firstHispanic sugar-caneplantations in the Caribbean, located on the
Greater Antilles, ca. 1500-1580, manned with enslaved aborigines,and enslavedand importedAfricans;
b) the firstBritishand Frenchsugar-caneplantationsin the Caribbean,located in
the Lesser Antilles,ca. 1640-1670, manned with enslaved aborigines,European indenturedservants,and enslavedAfricans;
c) Britishand French plantationsbased exclusivelyon enslavedAfricanlabor, at
theirapogee in EnglishJamaica (post-1655) and French St. Domingue (post1697);
d) a new stage of Hispanic sugar-caneplantations,again on the GreaterAntilles
(now only Cuba and Puerto Rico), ca. 1770*1870, based on enslaved,"contracted"and coerced labor;
e) plantationsbased on freeand "contracted" labor, successivelythroughoutthe
sugar colonies after emancipation (post-1838, British; post-1848, French;
post-1876,Puerto Rico; post-1886, Cuba, etc.).
This five-partschema could be carriedforwardinto the presentby the addition
of at least two other stages (the emergenceof a "genuine" ruralproletariat,and
9' Karl
Marx,Grundrisse
(London: PenguinBooks, 1973), 523.
Mintz,op. cit.
86
Sidney W.Mintz
then its eliminationwith progressivemechanization);and of course,it should be
elaborated and detailed farmore fully.Its principalusefulnesshere,I believe (as
in my reviewof Wallerstein'sModern WorldSystem,whereI firstproposedit),1*
is to indicate how labor formsother than slaverywere usually combined with
slaveryitself,in practice.
These differentformsof labor exaction, existingfor the most partin combination in Caribbean history, were not interchangeable,each representinga
variant response to labor needs; nor was it accidental or random that they
usually occurredin combined form,answeringneeds forlabor thatcould not be
most convenientlyor profitablymet by using one or anotherformexclusively.
Padgug has argued eloquently against the notion that such formswere freely
was possible:
thoughhe concedes thatsome substitutability
interchangeable,
There can be no doubt that, to a certaindegree,this view is correct.The postemancipationAmericansystems,for example, were indeed able to convertto other
systemsof labor withoutlosing theirpositionin worldmarkets.But thattheywere
of labor
able to do thiswas not in facta functionof the absoluteinterchangeability
systems,but ratherof the dominanceof capitalismin the world,a dominancewhich
createdand keptin opérationa majorsystemof commodityproductionand exchange,
and whichcould convertto its own use severalmoreprimitive
systemsof labor,which
otherwisewould have been by themselvesincapable of sustaininga commoditysystem.. . .
The apparentinterchangeability
of labor systemsat particularhistoricalmoments
paradoxicallyexists,therefore,only because of the peculiarnatureof the dominant
with
labor form,a formwhich in termsof dominanceis not at all interchangeable
otherforms.That thisshould be so oughtnot to be surprising.
For slavery,like other
and particulareffectswhichdiffermodes of production,has particularcharacteristics
entiateit fromall othermodes.And at pointswhereit is preciselythosecharacteristics
or whichare decisive
and effectswhichdominatetheentiresocio-economicformation
forits functioning
(as, forexample,in theperiodwhenslaveryin the Americasproved
to be the only systemcapable of providinglabor in sufficient
quantitiesto enable the
withothermodes.It is
colonies to be tied to the world),it is not all interchangeable
truethatMarx tendsto lumpslaveryand serfdomtogetheron occasionas iftheywere
but thisis onlyvis-à-vis
interchangeable,
wage-labor,and is onlymeantto demonstrate
and the
labor relationships
the vast differenceswhichexistbetweenall pre-capitalist
*
^
capitalistone.
"• nid.
RobertA. Padgug,"Problemsin die theoryof slaveryand slavesociety/'Scienceand Society,XL,
underwhichhe places slaveryand "other
1, Spr. 1976, 24-25. Padgug'suse of the.term"pre-capitalist**,
. . . the real division[being] between capitalismand all earliersocio-economic
pre-capitalistformations
formations,"can be seriouslyquestionedon severalgrounds.As Tomichpointsout in Preludeto Emancipation: Sugar and Slavery in Martinique,1830-1848, (unpubl. Ph.D. dissertation;Univ. of Wisconsin,
in the World-Economy,**
Madison, 1976) and in "Some FurtherReflectionson Class and Class-conflict
(SeminarI, WorkingPapers,FcrnandBraudelCenter,Dec 1, 1976, mimeo),plantationslaveryin theNew
Worldwas in no sense "pre-capitalist",
but a veryspecificproductof evolvingcapitalism.
"Negro slavery- whichis besidesincompatiblewiththe developmentof bourgeoissocietyand disappears withit, presupposeswage labor, and if otherfreestateswithwagelabor did not existalongsideit,if,
turnintopre-civiinsteadthe Negrostateswereisolated,thenall social conditionstherewould immediately
lized forms.**
(Marx, Grundrisse,op. cit., 224). It is essentialto draw analyticaldistinctionsbetween
betweenso-called
different
abstractedstages in the historyof capitalism,and to explorethe differences
merchantcapital and industrialcapital. But it does not followinevitablythatslaverywas coterminouswith
Was the PlantationSlave a Proletarian?
87
Indeed, the history of Caribbean plantationsdoes not show a clear break
between a slave mode of productionand a capitalistmode of production,but
somethingquite different.The succession of differentmixes of formsof labor
exaction in specificinstancesrevealsclearlyhow the plantationsystemsof differentCaribbean societies developed as parts of a worldwide capitalism,each
particularcase indicatinghow variantmeans were employedto provideadequate
labor, some successfuland some not, all withinan internationaldivisionof labor
transformed
by capitalism,and to satisfyan internationalmarketcreatedby that
same capitalistsystem.
My division of Caribbean plantation labor historyinto five periods, except
insofar as these can be vouchsafed by legislative(which is to say, politically
documentable)stipulationsas to the laws intended to regulatethe employment
and care of laborers of differentcategories,are quite arbitraryand imperfect.
Yet they at least may suggestin some ways the progressionof formsof labor
exaction or, more precisely,the progressionof mixturesof labor exaction, in
certain selected cases. We move back and forthhere, between some specific
historicalsituation,more or less describable in termsof a dominantmode of
production and certain subsidiary,complementaryor subordinate but interdependent modes, and an abstract,ahistoricalcharacterization,useful forhelping us to understandall instancesof concreteand the particularmore fully.For
my presentpurposes,it may be sufficientto defendthisassertionwitha sketchy
cases.
comparisonof two different
Cuba and Puerto Rico, both Spanish colonies, began periods of renewedand
rapid plantation expansion dating a few decades apart. In Cuba, the English
occupation of Havana fornearlya fullyear (1762-63) markedthe openingof a
new epoch; in Puerto Rico, thoughstirringsof new developmentspredated the
In PuertoRico, the prime
event,the "reforms"of 1809 were the turning-point.
mover was legislative,not military;but the legislativeprocess was forced by
wider economic pressures,immediatelyfollowingthe loss of all Spanish power
on the Latin American mainland, and soon afterthe Haitian Revolution had
colony. In Cuba, the Britishset
destroyedthe world's greatestsugar-producing
many local economic and political forcesin motion by theirinvasion.13 Cuba,
which was more than ten times largerthan Puerto Rico, richerand more populous, and with considerablygreaterinfluencein the metropolis,sought to solve
its plantation labor problem with more enslaved Africans,and the importation
ratesin the decades following1762 were horrifyingly
high.Even afterSpain had
signed an accord with Britain not to import more slaves to its New World
possessions,the importationscontinued,well past the middle of the nineteenth
century.
in nature.
one stage only in the worlddevelopmentof capitalism,and surelynot thatit was pre-capitalist
it is underBecause Marxistsapproachthe historicalstudyof capitalismfroman evolutionary
perspective,
withpre-capitalist
standable(but no less in error,I would argue)thattheysometimesconfusenon-capitalist
social formations.Marxhimselfappears to haveunderstoodthedifference
clearly.The titleof thebook by
Modes of Production(London: Routledge& Kegan Paul, 1975), strikesme
Hindessand Hirst,Pre-Capitalist
as beingerroneousforthesame reasons.
1S*
See ManuelMorenoFraginals,El Jngenio(La Habana, 1964), 5 ff.
88
Sidney W.Mintz
But enslaved Africanlabor neversufficedforthe Cuban plantersof the times.
To increase even more the available labor supply, they wrungfromthe Crown
the right to import Chinese contract labor, and imported, during a period
stretchingout more than half a century,from the height of the plantation
systemto well afteremancipation,perhaps as many as 135,000 Chinese. These
"contract" laborerswere not slaves,nor could theybe said to have been entirely
"free", thoughtheywerecertainlyfree(as opposed to enslaved)by conventional
standards of the time. Knight has cause, it seems to me, for claimingthat
"Chinese labor in Cuba in the nineteenthcenturywas slaveryin every social
aspect except the name."14 But the status of these laborerswas not inherited;
therewere no internationaltreatiesagainsttheirimportation;and thereroles on
the plantationswere not at all preciselythose of the slaves.15 Aimes pointsout
that the large estates of the mid-nineteenth
centuryhad mixed labor suppliesof
Chinese contract laborersand Africanslaves.16 "Not one of the giantingenios
composed their stock entirelyof negroes,"he tells us. The gradual addition of
Chinese contract laborers to the slave labor force played a particularpart in
"easing the transition"- to use the euphemismmost common in describingthis
process in the Caribbean - fromslaveryto freedom."The industriesof Cuba,"
Aimes writes, "were in an evolutionarystage between slave labour and free
labour, and in this change the great ingenios were taking the lead. Their first
contributionwas in the economy of labour effectedthroughbetterorganization
and improvedmachinery,and their second, in replacinghalf of the slaves by
coolies."1 7 I shall not attempt here to detail the rationale for this particular
process of modernization;sufficeit to say that what occurredin Cuba was, on
the one hand, consistentwith the universalreplacementof slave labor by freein
the nineteenthcentury,and on the other,distinctivelyand uniquely Cuban in
some regards.
Puerto Rico, the smaller, poorer, less influentialisland, enteringinto the
renewedexpansion of the sugarindustrysomewhatmore tardily,had no luck in
its effortsto influencethe Spanish Crown to permitthe importationof Asian
contractlabor. It possessed, however,anotherpotentialsource of labor whichit
succeeded in tapping by legislativechicanery.The "reforms"of Don Ramon
Power y Giralt achieved before the Cortés in 1809, made it possible for the
Puerto Rican governmentto force onto the plantation freebornbut landless
Puerto Ricans, on the elegant grounds that, being landless, they were "va8
grants".1 These measuresapproximatelydoubled the available labor force for
* FranklinW.
Knight,Slave Society in Cuba Duringthe NineteenthCentury(Madison: Univ. of
Wisconsin,1970), 119.
' See also Denise
Helly,Histoiredes genssans histoire:les ChinoisMacao à Cuba (in press).
16* See HubertH. S.
Aimes,Slaveryin Cuba, 1511-1868 (New York: G. P. Putnam'sSons, 1907),
212-13.
17'
Ibid., 213.
See my "The Role of Forced Labour in NineteenthCenturyPuertoRico/' CaribbeanHistorical
Review,II, 1951, 134-41; "Labor and Sugarin PuertoRico andJamaica,1800-1850," ComparativeStudies
in Society and History,I, 3, Mar. 1959, 273-81; and CaribbeanTransformations
(Chicago: Aldine,1974).
Slavea Proletarian?
WasthePlantation
89
was
andthoughPuertoRico'snineteenth-century
theplantations;
sugarindustry
fact
its
a
to
in
créole
workers
Cuba's,
modest,
regimented
played
compared
very
roleneatlyanalogousto thatplayedby theChinesein Cuba.
of the particularand
In thesetwo cases, we see at once the significance
That ruleis thatformsof
and thegeneralruleeach case substantiates.
specific,
and thatslavery
laborexactionwerenot interchangeable,
Caribbeanplantation
thatfindings
of this
pureform.It is mycontention
rarelyoccurredin absolutely
sort throwsome lighton the generalquestionas to whetherthe categories
orbestunderstood
canbe viewedas thesame,similar,
"slave"and "proletarian"
onlyby contrast.I intendto enlargeon thisgeneralpointat greaterlengthin
here.Let me,then,
so thatitneednotbe developedfurther
anotherpublication,
of thedifferent
character
of
to my"stages"to suggestsomething
return
briefly
each.
in theHispanicGreaterAntilles
of thesugarindustry
The firstdevelopments
of enslavedAfricans,who wereused as laborers
involvedearlyimportations
These developments
on the plantations.
alongsideenslavedNativeAmericans,
forthe Europeansugarmarket;inhad no significant
implications
long-range
of thisperioddisappearedin some cases, and exdeed, the earlyplantations
porteddecliningquantitiesof sugar,forthemostpart,afterthemiddleof the
sixteenthcentury.Thoughwe lack adequate details,it seemsthatthe labor
on theseearlyestates
and NativeAmericans
forenslavedAfricans
arrangements
American
Indiansweresupposedly"commended"
werein factquitedifferent,
and based upon
enfeoffment,
(encomendados),a statusvaguelyresembling
enslavedAfricans
were
Europeanpracticeas a sourceoflegalstatus.In contrast,
and
knownto be, andrecognized
as,slaves,subjectto different
legalconceptions
are a poor guideto actualbehavior,it is
thatlegalprescriptions
laws. Granting
the case thatthisfirstperiodof Caribbeanplantationhistorydoes
nonetheless
slavecode foritslaborforce.
notseemto havebeencharacterized
by a uniform
of moremodernplantationsin the LesserAntillesby the
The development
Britishand Frenchinvolved,first,theuse of indentured
Europeans,and later,
numbersof enslavedAfricans.(Therewere
of ever-increasing
the importation
Once
used as laboron theseplantations.)
also someenslavedNativeAmericans
forms,subjectto different
usagesand
again,we finda mix of labor-exaction
centurydoes African
Onlyafterthemiddleof theseventeenth
interpretations.
indentured
slavelaborbeginto prevail;and thereafter
Europeanlaborplaysan
roleintheLesserAntilles.
ever-declining
werefullydevelopedin
the
thirdperiod,whenlarge-scale
in
plantations
Only
Jamaicaand FrenchSt. Domingue- whichis to say, at the zenithof the
- didtheplantation
laborforce(in
slave-based
century
systemin theeighteenth
andenslaved.
African
inbeingexclusively
thesetwo colonies,at least)eventuate
It bearsnotingthatin neithercase was thisforlong the norm.Jamaicawas
as a plantation
colonyby theEnglishafteritsinvasionin 1655,and
redeveloped
Yet by thefirst
as suchonlywellintotheeighteenth
becamesignificant
century.
was in some
decade of the nineteenth
century,the Jamaicansugarindustry
camein 1834-38.St. Dominguewas developedby
and emancipation
difficulty,
thirdoftheislandof
theFrenchas a plantation
colonyevenbeforethewestern
systemdidnotreachits
Espanolawas cededto themin 1697; buttheplantation
zeniththereuntilthe eighteenth
century.And by the eighthdecade of that
90
Sidney W.Mintz
century,the Revolution was ready to explode upon the colony. In otherwords,
the epoch of "pure slavery" in these two colonies, the most lucrativein European history,was in each case less than a centuryin length.
In the fourthso-calledperiod,Cuba and Puerto Rico developed theirrenewed
sugarindustrieson a slave and forced-laborbasis; since I have referredto these
cases already,however,no more need be added here, except to underlineonce
again the mixed characterof the systemof labor-exaction.
Finally,a word may be offeredconcerningthe "transitional"period following
formalemancipation. In the case of Cuba, as we have seen, Chinese contract
labor "eased the transition"to freedom.But in many other instances,it was
necessaryto destroythe bargainingpower of the newlyfreedin orderto approximate conditions of coercion sufficientlycontinuous with slaveryto make the
plantation systemworthwhilefor those who underwroteit. Hence the period
followingthe coming of formalfreedomwas, in many Caribbean cases, one of
intensifiedchicanery,intimidation,and legislativecoercion, reminiscentin its
intent of the postbellum U.S. South, but never typifiedby the specificracist
terrorismof the South. The taxes levied on Jamaican freedmen;the trickery
used to facilitatethe importationof Indian contractlaborersto that country;
the legislativedevices developed to keep land out of the hands of the Guianese
freedmen;the so-called"apprenticeshipsystems"employedto immobilizelabor,
ostensiblywhile laborerslearned how to be free; the importationofJavaneseto
Surinam - indeed, the list of differentiated
"solutions" to the "labor problem"
typical of the post-emancipationCaribbeanstaggersthe imagination,and numbs
the reader's sense of ethics and fairplay. It is only reallyin the closingdecades
of the nineteenthcenturyand, in some cases, even laterthan that,whenwe are
able to note the decline of legislativeand otherdeviceslimitingin one regardor
another the completely free movementof the laborer and the completelyfree
sale of his labor as a commodity.One can argue,accordingly,that only when
such a point arrivesis it possible to speak of "true proletarians"- but I wish to
deferthatpresumption,and what it bringsin its wake.
Instead, I preferto turnto a somewhatdifferent
subject at thispoint,having
to do with slave labor-power,and its significancefor the case I am seekingto
make. I have already suggestedthat, like proletarians,slaves are separatedfrom
the means of production;but of course,it is not that theyhave nothingbut their
labor to sell. Rather,they are themselvescommodities,theirlabor is not, under
most circumstances,a commoditywithinthe slave economy,but the productsof
theirlabor are, under most circumstances,commodities;theythemselvesappear
to be a formof capital, thoughtheyare humanbeings.
The cost of labor, undertheseconditions:
. . . appearsas a seriesof investments
in fixedcapital.. . . Moreover,since theplanter
has to bear the costsof reproducing
theslave,all of theslave'slabor appearsas unpaid
surpluslabor forthe master.19The whole of theslave'sproductis thepropertyof the
19* Rod
theanalysisof slaveryin Pre-Capitalist
Modes of Productionby Hindessand
Aya, in criticizing
Hirst,showshow theyhave misunderstoodMarx'streatment.
(Reviewin Theoryand Society,III, 4,Winter
1976, 623-29). Hindess & Hirstargue: "For the slave all labour is surplus-labour."(Op cit.y132). But
neitheris truenordidMarxeverclaimit. Indeed,he is veryexplicit:"The wage-form
thusextinguishes
every
Was the PlantationSlave a Proletarian?
91
master.Nonetheless,if the productiveactivityof the slave is examined,it is apparent
that one part of his labor produces the value necessaryfor his subsistenceand the
otherpartproducesa surplus.The productionof thissurplusis the basis of theslave
economy,but the value of labor and the distinctionbetweennecessaryand surplus
laborarehiddenby thepropertyrelationin slavesociety.2**
Slaves differfrom proletariansnot only in that they appear as a form of
capital while their labor is not a commodity,but also because they receiveno
wages, only receivinginstead that portion of their labor-powerthat takes the
formof necessarylabor, so called. Accordingly,one could assertthat they lie
outside the commoditysystemwithinwhichtheyproduce; theycannot generate
internaldemand; and theydo not forma consumermarket.
This is all verywell,to the extentthatit allows us to beginto characterizethe
slave mode of production.All thatremainsto be done, however,is to move from
such postulatesto the everydayrealitiesof slavelifeon Caribbeanplantations.In
doing so, our grasp of the slave systeminevitablybecomes more complicated,
even as it becomes more nuanced. The cost of slave labor appears, Tomich
stresses,"as a series of investmentsin fixed capital (housing, food, clothing,
etc.) . . . [while] all of the slave's labor appears as unpaid surpluslabor for the
master."21 Maintenanceduringthe effectiveproductiveperiod of the slave's life
cost fromthatrepre(and, indeed, often thereafter)representsa quite different
sented by the original outlay - the purchase price - by which his owner
acquiresexclusiveaccess to his labor-power.
Not calculated as a part of maintenanceis the cost of coercionwhich,in my
view,deservesmentionnot just because it was an importantpart of the realityof
slave life,but also because I believe that it meshes with the problemof maintenance, and in curiousways. I would be inclinedto arguethatthesetwo different
sorts of runningexpense, maintenanceon the one hand and coercion on the
other, can cancel each other out, as it were, under certain conditions. The
principallong-termsupply-costof maintainingthe slave was, I believe,nutrition.
In the slave codes of the Caribbean,slave nutritionusually figuredimportantly,
codes often specifyingthe kinds and quantitiesof food with which slaves were
supposed to be supplied. Indeed, the provisionof adequate food was a prime
preoccupationof Caribbean slave systems,and we need not look to altruismfor
explanation.Debbasch, in his monographon marronagein St. Domingue,argues
that inadequate food was probably a principalcause of slave flightfrom the
into paid and unpaid
into necessarylabour and surplus-labour,
trace of the divisionof the working-day
labour. All labour appearsas paid labour. In thecorvée,thelabourof the workerforhimself,and his comeventhat
pulsorylabour forhis lord, differin space and timein theclearestpossibleway. In slave-labour,
in whichthe slave is only replacingthe value of his own meansof existence,in
part of the working-day
in fact,he worksforhimselfalone, appearsas labourforhis master.All the slave'slabour
which,therefore,
or unpaidlabour,appearas
on thecontrary,
evensurplus-labour,
appearsas unpaid labour. In wage-labour,
conpaid. There the propertyrelationconcealsthelabourof theslaveforhimself;herethemoney-relation
ceals theunrequitedlabourof thewage-labourer.*'
(Capital,op. cit.,I, 550).
Tomich,Preludeto Emancipation,op. cit.t140-41.
«• au.
92
Sidney W.Mintz
plantationsthere.22 Yet we immediatelysee here certain contradictions.The
importationof food was always expensive.The slave systems(in theirnature,it
appears) tended to eliminate the local production of commodities other than
those (sugar, coffee, indigo, or whatever) produced on the plantations for
export. What is more, plantation systemsalso tended to eliminate freesmallscale producers, as happened over and over again in the Lesser Antilles,as
sugar-caneand slaverygrew.
In many cases the planters,faced by these contradictions,sought to solve
themby using some part of the slave labor force to produce food. Havingdealt
at lengthwith this subject elsewhere,23I do not wish to dwell upon it here;but
a few points in passing may be useful. First, it is noteworthythat the slave
economies,both directlyand indirectly,stimulatedthe exchangeof food plants
between the Old World and the New. The most famous particularcase, by no
means unique, was the commissioningof Capt. Bligh by the Jamaica Assembly
to bringthe breadfruitfromOceania to thatisland. Though mutinythwartedhis
firstattempt,Bligh was successfulon his second, and the breadfruitdid become
an importantsource of slave subsistence.Second, it deservesnote in passingthat
both the agricultureand the cuisine of the contemporaryCaribbean regionmanifest the interblendingof numerous differentmajor traditions,among them
African,Asian, European, and Native American; this contemporarypictureis,
however,centuriesold, for the most part,and a byproductof the economic and
demographichistoryof the Caribbean region.Third, it needs to be stressedthat
a very substantialpart of the slaves' subsistencewas, in fact,produced by the
slaves themselves,and that in many cases the slaves also produced a goodly
measureof the subsistenceof the freepopulations of plantationsocieties.It is to
theselattertwo pointsthat I wish to devote a littlemore attention.
In compellingor permittingthe slaves to grow subsistence,plantershad to
balance the value of land put in sugar-caneagainst its value in food crops.
Normally,upland or poorer tractswere used for subsistencecultivation,except
on those islands so poor or dry that land could not be made available for such
cultivation.It was necessary as well for the plantersto balance the slave labor
power used on the plantationsagainstits yield if put into subsistencecultivation.
Here, once again, the solution where possible was to use the veryyoungand the
very old, as well as the adult and ablebodied, and to confine such labor to the
periods when work in the sugar-canefieldswas less needed. In balancinglabor
use, a common solution was to leave the slave Sunday and an additional halfday, at least duringthe so-called "dead time", forthe productionof foodstuffs.
Even thisarrangement,
however,containedcontradictoryelementswithinit.
That these were not withouttheircomical side is suggestedby the arguments
of Mr. Edward Long, a pro-slaveryfigureas eloquent as he was virulent,in his
two-volumeHistoryof Jamaica. Long's loyalties were at times confused by the
99
Sec Yvon Debbasch,"Le marronnage:essaisurla désertionde l'esclaveantillais/'L'année sociologique, 1961,1-112; 1962, 117-95.
23*
E.g., "CurrencyProblemsin EighteenthCenturyJamaica and Gresham'sLaw," in R. Manners,éd.,
Processand Patternin Culture(Chicago: Univ.of ChicagoPress,1964), 248-65; and CaribbeanTransformations,op. cit.
Slavea Proletarian?
WasthePlantation
93
of slavelabor inJamaica,whereslavesweregrantedat thetime
circumstances
offin orderto workon theirsubsistence
each Sundayandanotherhalf-day
plots
received86 daysperyearfree
and go to the market.The slavesof Christians
labor(exceptin casesof veryurgentbusiness),whichincluded
fromplantation
The slavesofJewshowever,
halfof everySaturday.
everySundayand normally
becausetheJewshad more
receivedat least 111 daysperyearforthemselves,
holidaysthantheChristians.
Long calculatedhow theseadditionaldays not only improvedthe slaves'
theirabilityto accumulatecapitalfor
morale,but also increasedsignificantly
wereChristian
thatfewChristians
themselves.
But he recognized
enoughto give
had to be
theirslavestwo freedaysperweek.At thesametime,sincemarkets
of theslaveswas entirely
heldon Sunday,theonlyday on whichthemajority
who
tradewasengrossed
free,thelargerpartof themarket
byJewishmerchants
In orderforChristian
merchants.
could workon Sunday,unlikethe Christian
to competewiththeJewsfortheslaves'custom,themarketday
shopkeepers
oughtto havebeen changedto some day otherthanSunday.Yet thatwould
slaveowners.Longarguesfor
loss of laborto Christian
havemeanta significant
addingThursdayas a freeday,to Sunday,bothto improvetheslaves'morale
a firmer
and to affordChristian
shopkeepers
purchaseon thebuyingpowerof
theslaves.He evenpointsout thepotentialvalueof religiouseducationforthe
slaveson Sundays,quotinganotherwriter."On thisday some painsshould
be takento instruct
themto thebestoftheircomprehension,
certainly
especially
the children,in some of the principlesof religionand virtue- particularly
and honestywhichbecometheircondition."24ButLong
submission,
humility,
too well.The
soundsratherhalf-hearted
here;perhapshe knewhis Christians
of Sundaymarkets
elimination
onlycameaboutin 1838, withtotalemancipation.
of this
in theinitiation
an elementofcompulsion
Thoughtherewas certainly
formof work,in whichslavesdevoteda day and one-halfper week to the
see veryearlyin thehistory
of theirown foodplots,we nonetheless
cultivation
seemsto
ofbothJamaicaand St. Domingue(thecasesforwhichtheinformation
be richest)thatthe institution
soon becameone whichthe slavesthemselves
It revealssimultanI thinkthisdevelopment
wasofgreatimportance.
preferred.
I think,
in the
or inconsistencies
eouslya wholeseriesofcontradictions
implicit,
thatI feelaboutthe
slavemodeof production,
and pointsto somereservations
or
someaspectsof thiscontradiction,
conceptitself.Let me tryto enumerate
inconsistency.
Firstof all, thedevelopment
of foodcultivation
outsidetheslaveryregimen
ranentirely
counterto thewholeconceptionof howtheslavemodeofproductionwas supposedto operate.It meant,aboveall,thatslaveswereableto work
withoutsupervision.
Secondly,it madeit possible,(andI believethatit wasthe
withintheplantationframework
in whichthiswas true)for
onlycircumstance
slavesto workin groupsof theirown choosing- normally
in family
groups,to
we have. Thirdly,it permitted
the slavesto make
judge by the descriptions
- whattheywouldgrow,andhowmuch- thatnotonlynourished
calculations
EdwardLong,HistoryofJamaica(London: T. Lowndcs,1774), I, 491-92.
Sidney W.Mtntz
94
their own sense of autonomy, but also must have permitteda demonstration
- a differentiation
that
withinthe slave group itselfof individualdifferentiation
did not depend upon the whim of the master.Fourthly- and thiscomes out in
the record, too, particularlyin the reportsof travellers- it dramatized the
natureof the slave regimen,and the humanityof the slaves,to anyone intelligent
enough to make the inferences.That these people, seeminglyso sodden and
stupid and dull, incapable of the simplestoperationswhen cuttingcane, could
turn out to be lively, intelligent,and even happy when workingon theirown
plots, amazed the planters. But foreigners- travellers- had no difficultyin
understandingwhat the differencewas. Moreover, subsistencecultivationby
slaves had consequences of even widersignificance.In bothJamaica and in Haiti,
and in practicallyall Antilleansocietieswherecultivationof thiskind developed,
this institutionled to production that was not for directuse. Indeed, it led to
more than simplythe productionof food whichthe producersthemselvesmight
consume. Thus the slaves were able to transformwhat had begun as a coercive
forminto somethingelse: when a slave sold part of his own production,this
meant a "radical breach" in the slave mode of production.25The concept of the
mode depends, as does that of the capitalist mode, on the separation of the
workerfromthe means of production.Whenthe slave produces food forhimself
and his familyhe is adding direct-useproductionto the economic pictureof his
structuralposition. And when he adds the sale of his own product,he adds yet
another, somewhat contradictoryelement to the realityof Antillean slavery.
Whenhe buys, with the money he earnsby selling,he adds yet anotherelement
of a contradictorykind. And when - as was the case in these societies - he
provisionsthe free classes within slave society,this adds yet anothersuch element.26
* The
expressionwas apparentlycoined by T. Lepkowski,and appearsin hisHaiti,Vol. I (La Habana,
1968). It is also employed by Ciro F. S. Cardoso in his interestingpaper, "La brecha en el sistema
esclavista"(ms., 1977). But theidea thatCaribbeanslavesshouldnot sufferthe terminological
confinement
to which some scholarshad consignedthem goes back a good deal further;long beforethe twentieth
century,observersnoted thatslaves and runawaysboth had done muchto alterthenatureof slaveryitself,
and to producea realitythe mastershad neitherintendednor calculatedupon. I have treatedthismatter
more fullyin: CaribbeanTransformations,
Americanhistory/*
Cahiersd'Histoire
op. cit.; "Toward ah Afro»
Mondiale,XIII, 2, 1971, 317-32); and, with RichardPrice,in An Anthropological
Approachto the AfroAmericanPast: A CaribbeanPerspective,Ishi Occasional Papersin Social Change2 (Philadelphia:Institute
for the Study of Human Issues Press, 1976). NeitherCardoso nor Lepkowski,however,views these
"breaches" in the slave systemas requiringany revisionin the concept of a slave mode of production.I
remaina littleunsure.
*
That one mode of productionis dominantover othermodes withinthe same formation;that the
coexistenceof such modes is entirelyto be expected and that the concept of mode of productionis not
intendednor expected to be identical withany particular,on-the-ground
reality,are assertionsgenerally
accepted by Marxistscholars,I believe.But it does not seem to me to be usefulto treatparticularhistorical
instancesas irrelevantto our understandingof what the ideal-typemode of productionconsistsin, and
represents.Nor do I findit usefulto seek to explain what mightmistakenlybe perceivedas exceptions,
or freakinstancesas being"transitional**
irregularities,
phenomena.This part of the argumentrelates,on
the one hand, to old-fashioneddispositionsto describeconcretehistoricalcases as examplesof "feudal**or
"slave**stages of evolutioncut off fromeventselsewherein the capitalistworld,and, on the other,to
ignore those veryconcreteparticularsthat enable us to grasppreciselywhat the term"contradiction**
betterhow social formations,
and theircomponentmodes of production,change
means,in understanding
overtime.
Was the PlantationSlave a Proletarian?
95
One may say in response to this that,while the case complicates our understanding,it does not affectthe natureof the mode of production,or our means
for conceptualizingit. Nonetheless,I think we must tryto specifywhat, pre, one of the most thoroughobservers
cisely,is happeninghere.Moreaude St.-Méry
of prerevolutionarySt. Domingue, tells us in a beautiful passage that, in the
marketplace of Clugny, in Cap François (today's Cap Haïtien), in the years
immediatelyprecedingthe revolution,15,000 slaves came each Sunday to buy
and sell.27 Again,in Jamaica,we know that the firstmarketplacewas established
in 1662, only seven years after the conquest of Jamaica by the British,and
was followedby hundredsof others. Edward Long tellsus that,in the late 18th
century,20% of the metallic currencyin Jamaica at that time was in the hands
of the slaves who sold to each other,to theirmasters,to the freepopulation of
the towns, and - a fact that would be funnyif it were not so tragic- to the
garrisonsof Britishsoldiersmaintainedin Jamaica to controlthe slaves.
Now, if one leaves aside the significanceof cultivationand marketingforany
eleganttheoryof mode of production,consideringit only in termsof its everyday meaning,I thinkit leads to at least threepoints. Firstthisinstitutionputs in
doubt any economic formulationthatbases itselfpurelyon commodityproduction in interpreting
Antilleanslave society.Second, it raisesquestions about any
monolithic definitionor explanation of what constitutesresistance.The way
that I have couched this before - and one can thinkof other examples - the
cook of the master's family,that faithfullady who prepared the meals three
timesa day, sometimesput groundglassin the food of her diners.But she had to
become the cook before this option became available. What I mean to say, of
course, is that the concept of resistanceis.reallyverycomplicated,ideological
considerationsaside. Third, the institutionsof slave cultivationand marketing
can help to throw light upon the historicalsequences fromslaveryto other
formsof labor exaction - though I believe that neitherthe researchnor the
thinkingneeded to reveal the full meaningof these institutionshas taken place
so far."There is somethingin humanhistorylike retribution,"Marx has written,
be forgednot by the
"and it is a rule of historicalretributionthatits instrument
offendedbut by the offenderhimself."28 Nothing else duringthe historyof
Caribbean slaverywas as importantas marketingand provisioncultivationin
making it possible for the free person - in the case of Haiti, the successful
revolutionary- to adapt to freedomwithoutthe blessingsof the formermasters.
But of course the process was in no sense a simple one, and both slaves and
mastersknewit:
The practicewhichprevailsin Jamaica of givingthe Negroeslands to cultivate,from
the produce of which they are expected to maintainthemselves(except in timesof
scarcity,arisingfromhurricanesand droughts,whenassistanceis neverdeniedthem)is
27*
See Louis Moreau de St. Mcry,Descriptiontopographique,
physique,civile,politique,et historique
de la partiefrançaisede VisleSaint-Domingue(Paris: Société d l'histoiredes colonies françaises,1958), I,
433.
28* Karl
Marx,"The Indian Revolt,"New York Tribune,Sept. 16, 1857, in S. Avineri,éd., KarlMarx
on Colonialismand Modernization(GardenCity,N.Y.: Doubleday Anchor,1969), 224.
96
Sidney W.Mintz
universallyallowed to be judicious and beneficial;producinga happy coalition of
interestsbetween the masterand the slave. The negrowho has acquiredby his own
less inclined
labour a propertyin his master'sland, has much to lose, and is therefore
to deserthis work.He earnsa littlemoney,by whichhe is enabledto indulgehimself
in fineclothes on holidays,and gratifyhis palate withsalted meatsand otherprovisions that otherwisehe could not obtain; and the proprietoris eased, in a great
measure,of theexpenseof feedinghim.^
Jamaica to
Bryan Edwards was too shrewdan observerof eighteenth-century
have missed the mutual benefit flowingfrom these institutions- or to have
failedto see how the short-term
satisfactionsof independentcultivationand sale
mighthave dulled long-termdissatisfactionswith the realitiesof slaveryitself.
All the same, the developmentof such institutionswithinthe contextof slavery
suggeststhat our conceptions of freedomand unfreedomare probably too narrow and extreme.
Indeed, it is by this assertionthat I returnto the major aim of thispaper: to
consider in what ways, and to what extent, the categories "proletarian" and
"slave" reallyapproach each otherin practice."The properrole of a definition,"
Aya tells us, "is to focus attentionon observables,to convertdisputationover
wordsinto disagreementabout what theystand for,and therebyopen arguments
to furtherinquiry,testing,and refutation.Taken by themselves,"he continues,
"definitionsare arbitrary;they'prove' nothing.At most theyserveto demarcate
the problem at issue, not to solve it. They are not subject to 'proof and demonstration'any more than you can 'prove*thata square is a rectanglewithall four
sides equal."30 Startingfromverymeagerdefinitionalstatements,I have sought
to concentrateupon slaves,leavingaside any seriouscharacterizationof proletarians. Those slaves with whom I chose to deal were,as we have seen, disposingof
some of their own labor-power independently,on the one hand, and often
coexisting with representativesof other categories of labor exaction on the
other. My aim, clearly,has not been to narrowwhat mightbe said about the
slaves,so much as to broaden it. Thus, in certainregardsit would be accurateto
assertthat I have touched on some of the ways in whichthe slavesparticipated
in productiveactivitiesnot conventionallyassociated withslavery,or not part of
the slave mode of production.
If, on the one hand, I have sought to indicate some ways in which slave
economic activitiesresembledthose of freepersons,it is also true that I would
have liked to have shown how the activitiesof freepersons,workingalongside
the slaves, were constrainedby coercion and force. I have not really done so
here; but the note taken of non-slavecategoriesof labor in the Caribbeanplantation context was intended to make this general point. Just as slaves were not
completely encapsulated by the state of servitude,so those who, technically
free,labored at theirside were not in fact completelyunshackled.31 The con29*
Bryan Edwards, The History,Civil and Commercial,of the BritishColonies in the WestIndies
(London: J. Stockdale,1793), II, 131.
Aya, Reviewof Hindessand Hirst,op. cit.,625.
* F. H.
Cardoso, in criticizingveryhelpfullyan earlydraftof my reviewof Wallerstein
(Dialectical
Anthropology,op. cit.), writes:"On the one hand, it does not seem to me that thesenew 'indentured
Slavea Proletarian?
WasthePlantation
97
trastbetweenfreeand slave,whendrawnas Marxdrewit in orderto dramatize
is notincorrect,
butextreme,
thedistinctive
natureof Europeancapitalism,
and
conditionsin every
does not - couldnot - takeaccountof specifichistorical
of thecapicase. As Tomichhas asserted,"whileMarxstressedtheimportance
he neverexplicitly
forunderstanding
NewWorldslavery,
talistworld-economy
developeda theoryof slaveeconomies,and thequestionof thesocialformsof
treatedin his work."32Padgugmakesa
slaveproductionis not systematically
but related,pointwhenhe writes:"It is truethatMarxtendsto lump
different,
but
slaveryand serfdomtogetheron occasionas if theywereinterchangeable,
the vast
thisis only vis-à-vis
wage labor,and is onlymeantto demonstrate
and thecapitalist
differences
betweenall pre-capitalist
[sic] laborrelationships
one."33
I do not meanto suggestby thesecitationsthatI believethe fundamental
betweenCaribbeanplantationslavesand Europeanfactory
economicdifference
can be abandonedby simplerecourseto the themeof theglobal
proletarians
I do believe,however,
thatWallerstein's
insistence
isjustifiable,
world-economy.
oflaborcanbe madeanalytically
morecomprehensible
thatlocal forms
byprior
to theworld-economy:
reference
The point is thatthe "relationsof productions*'thatdefinea systemare the"relations of production"of the whole system,and the systemat thispoint in time [the
sixteenthcentury]is the European world-economy.Free labor is indeed a defining
featureof capitalism,but not freelabor throughoutthe productiveenterprises.Free
labor is the formof labor control used for skilled work in core countrieswhereas
coercedlabor is used forless skilledworkin peripheralareas.The combinationthereof
is theessenceof capitalism.3*
Putotherwise,
it is not analytically
mostusefulto defineeither"proletarian"
or "slave" in isolation,since thesetwo vastcategoriesof toilerwereactually
linkedintimately
by theworldeconomythathad,as it were,givenbirthto them
eithercategory
both,in theirmodernform.I havenotaimedhereat assimilating
servants'fromChina,India or Java could be thoughtof as freeby anyonemakinga consideredjudgement.
On the other,abolition did not mean to anyone the passage to a typicalcapitalistsystemin regardto
whichrepresentand similararrangements,
productiverelations,sinceslaverywas replacedby sharecropping
ed a high level of personaldependence,includingextra-economiccoercion. I believe this is one of the
clearestcases of the formalsubjection of non-capitalistformsof labor to a clearlycapitalistprocess,
- productiveforces,formsand levelsof
structures
internalopportunitiesforpreexisting
therebypreventing
to new influencesof theworld
accumulation,and a whole historicalcontext- fromrespondingdifferently
of thissort,thecontradictions
market.. . . For me ... thisrevealsthe necessityof analyzing,in transitions
mytranslation).
[arisingfrom] the confluenceof externaland internal forces*'(personalcorrespondence,
I believethatthesecontradictions
mustraisecontinuingquestionsof a theoretical
WhileI agreeentirely,
natureabout thecategoriesthemselves("proletarian","slave") and theadjectives("free","unfree")we use
to describethem. The contradictionsare both a cause and an outcome of specificand particularcircumstancesthatshouldaffectthenatureof our categories.It is thecategorieswhichare abstract.
o o
3S-
Tomich,Preludeto Emancipation,op. cit.y138.
Padgug,op. ciu 24-25.
34* Immanuel
The Modern World-System:
Wallerstcin,
CapitalistAgricultureand the Originsof the
in theSixteenthCentury(New York: AcademicPress,1974), 27.
European World-Economy
98
Sidney W.Mintz
to the other,but at suggestinginsteadwhy a purelydefinitionalapproachleaves
somethingto be desired. I shall not attempt to broach a related theme - the
specificeconomic linkagesbetween European proletariansand Caribbean slaves
throughthe products of their labor - which deservesseparate and detailed
treatmentin its own right.But it may be appropriateto conclude by suggesting
that both the similaritiesand differencesbetween these abstractcategorieswill
become much clearer,once those linkageshave become fullyexposed.