Funny you say that. I thought you’d say that Roll Jordan Roll and Genovese’s giant shadow is the pivot point, ie, normal revisionism of older generations paradigmatic historiography in this case rejects pre-modern reactionary view in favor of modernization. But also-banks!
-
-
-
Genovese's first book, the Political Economy of Slavery, made the argument that slavery was an unprofitable economic system, more in line with traditional Marxian posture. Later works focused on culture, but don't think Genovese every changed that view of the slave economy.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Before time on the cross, the orthodox position was that slavery was antithetical to logic of capitalism. But F&E argued that slave labor was productive because of economic incentives. This is very different from recent work of Baptist and Walter Johnson. 1/
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
As you suggest they argue that slavery was productive according to logic of capitalism. But because non-pecuniary incentives (torture, starvation) can also yield labor efficiency. And Johnson explains how the slave trade is intrinsic to 19th c. Finance. 2/
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.