Capitalism and Slavery

The transformation from subsistance society where everyone more or less consumed what they produced, to international capitalism required as a precondition the accumulation of capital. That is, some people had to be able to produce more than they consumed before they could have anything to invest.
Williams contribution to the literature of this transformation is to focus on the role of the slave trade. On the one hand, it provided a source of raw materials (human beings) which could be sold at a profit by traders, and then used to produce even more wealth by the buyers (slaveholders). This double accumulation of wealth went a long way toward allowing a few very wealthy people to accumulate capital, which coul;d then be invested in things like machinery.
At the same time, the slave trade provided an economic foundation for a large scale international trading network (the famous molasses, slave, rum triangle, later includeing cotton). Without this international network of shippers and merchants, the English (and later New England) cotton mills would not have had anywhere to sell their manufactured product (cotton cloth), nor a cheap source of cotton to use as raw materials.
Williams' ground breaking contirbution was to link all of this together, and argue that without the immoral slave trade, the industrial revolution, and thus capitalism as we know it, would not have happened. The inescapable conclusion is that since much of modern wealth was founded on slavery, some form of reparations is warranted.

The basic theory underlying Eric Williams's Capitalism and Slavery is that slavery in the colonies, particularly the West Indies so far as this analysis is concerned, brought about capitalism, and thereby led to its own decline.

The first five chapters of the book explain the nature of British economics prior to the American Revolution. Synthesizing information rather than expressing his own view, Williams discusses triangular trade among England, the African coast, and the slave-holding colonies. In essence, England exported goods and ships, Africa exported slaves, and the colonies exported slave-produced raw materials.

American independence destroyed the mercantilist scheme of triangular trading. The ex-colonies now had no incentive to trade with the West Indies at their monopoly prices, instead turning to French islands for their sugar, at considerably lower prices. Consequently, British businessmen were no longer interested in giving economic protection to the West Indies because doing so without mainland North America would cost them money. One basic tenet of Adam Smith's capitalism is that business should be efficient and profitable, and monopolies simply were neither. The laissez-faire approach, or Smith's "invisible hand," meant eliminating monopolies and letting economics take its course.

During this time the Industrial Revolution also occurred, generating new machinery, most notably Watt's steam engine, and simplifying the extraction of raw materials. Ironworks were now much more efficient, for example, as was the process of turning wool into useable cloth. These advantages put Great Britain in a position to economically dominate the world. During this time also Spanish colonies in South America began breaking away from Spain, opening up vast regions for British trade. Similarly, Asia became a possibility for a wide variety of goods, most notably, in the scope of Williams' book, East Indian sugar. All these opportunities and Britain's economic superiority culminated in the end of monopolistic practices.

Slavery had precipitated these developments by generating fantastic wealth through triangular trading; without slavery, that trade scheme would not have existed. Once these developments came to pass, however, slavery proved itself largely pass?. Without the monopoly on West Indian sugar, slave trading became substantially less profitable. At the same time, when the American mainland split from Great Britain, suddenly Britain was no longer dependent on slavery for economic success, but instead could be a global distributor for goods. Furthermore, abolitionists in England gave cry to the crime of slavery, since they were no longer directly dependent on it, and eventually Britain banned the slave trade.

Williams's analysis is interesting and well worth reading. That said, his assertion that slavery declined is only partly true; it was alive and well in the southern United States. Furthermore, while Williams claims slavery brought about triangular trading, which in turn brought about the Industrial Revolution, one wonders if slavery simply expedited the arrival of the Industrial Revolution. Finally, he focuses to a significant extent on British humanitarianism in ending slavery; cynically, one must consider the relevance of slavery to those humanitarians, and how many there were after the Industrial Revolution.

The last two reviewers who seemed to criticize Williams for not discussing other forms of slavery miss the point. Williams was not engaged in some sort of West bashing but attempted to explain the significance of slavery in the development of the Caribbean. Insofar as Islam is concerned, the reviewers once again miss the essential point. Rather than investigate what Islam actually says about slavery they go with a knee-jerk assumption. Here is what Kecia Ali has written about slavery in Islamic society:

"The Qur'an, which Muslims believe to have been revealed by God to the Prophet Muhammad in the seventh century, makes numerous references to slaves and slavery (e.g., Q. 2.178; 16.75; 30.28). Like numerous passages in the Hebrew bible and the New Testament, the Qur'an assumes the permissibility of owning slaves, which was an established practice before its revelation. The Qur'an does not explicitly condemn slavery or attempt to abolish it. Nonetheless, it does provide a number of regulations designed to ameliorate the situation of slaves. It recommends freeing slaves, especially "believing" slaves (Q. 2.177). Manumission of a slave is required as expiation for certain misdeeds (Q. 4.92; 58.3) and another verse states that masters should allow slaves to purchase their own freedom (Q. 24.33).

The Qur'an also suggests certain means of integrating slaves, some of whom were enslaved after being captured in war, into the Muslim community. It allows slaves to marry (either other slaves or free persons; Q. 24.32; 2.221; 4.25) and prohibits owners from prostituting unwilling female slaves (Q. 24.33). Despite this protection against one form of sexual exploitation, female slaves do not have the right to grant or deny sexual access to themselves. Instead, the Qur'an permits men to have sexual access to "what their right hands possess," meaning female captives or slaves (Q. 23.5-6; 70.29-30). This was widely accepted and practiced among early Muslims; the Prophet Muhammad, for example, kept a slave-concubine (Mariya the Copt) who was given to him as a gift by the Roman governor of Alexandria.

Traditional Islamic law (fiqh) elaborates significantly on the Qur'anic material concerning slavery. The enslavement of war captives is regulated, along with the purchase and sale of slaves. While it is not permissible to enslave other Muslims, the jurists clarify that if a non-Muslim converts to Islam after enslavement, he or she remains a slave and may be lawfully purchased and sold like any other slave. (This rule closes a potential loophole allowing for slaves to gain their freedom by the simple fact of conversion.) The law also prescribes penalties for slave owners who maltreat or abuse their slaves; these penalties can include forced manumission of the slave without compensation to the owner.

Islamic law devotes special attention to regulating the practice of slave marriage and concubinage, in order to determine the paternity and/or ownership of children born to a female slave. A man cannot simultaneously own and be married to the same female slave. The male owner of a female slave can either marry her off to a different man, thus renouncing his own sexual access to her, or he may take her as his own concubine, using her sexually himself. Both situations have a specific effect on the status of any children she bears. When female slaves are married off, any children born from the marriage are slaves belonging to the mother's owner, though legal paternity is established for her husband. When a master takes his own female slave as a concubine, by contrast, any children she bears are free and legally the children of her owner, with the same status as any children born to him in a legal marriage to a free wife. The slave who bears her master's child becomes an umm walad (literally, mother of a child), gaining certain protections. Most importantly, she cannot be sold and she is automatically freed upon her master's death."

As for the Aztec, they had a system of slavery that also came with a bundle of rights, far different from the chattel slavery of the European variety.

Free-market capitalism and slavery are the antitheses of each other. One of the tenets of capitalism is the free entry and exit of labor. The system of which the author speaks is "crony capitalism" which should properly be termed "crony socialism," wherein the power of government is used to back the moneyed interests. Slavery, anywhere, anytime, cannot exist without government protection. If the southern plantation owners hadn't had their colonial and state governments on their side, slavery would never have taken root. Government properly exists to ensure and protect the rights of entry into and out of the market. It was government who dropped the ball on slavery throughout history. Any slavedriver MUST either work directly for the government or be a private concern with the force of law on his side.

What can I say about this book that has not been said already. This is a text book studied in Colleges, that should speak volumes. Capitalism and Slavery was written by the first and former Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, Dr Eric William.Dr William, in a nutshell shows how the wealth of the west was gained by the exploitation and enslavement of the black man. The wealth of Capitalism came from the free labor of the slaves on the sugar, cotton and tobacco plantations. It also clearly show how these wealthy capitalist fought against the abolition of slavery, for they did not want to loose the wealth of the slaves - their free labor. This book is a MUST read. What is also wonderful about this book is that the author quoted from amazing historical sources to prove his point, it would be nice to get one's hand on some of those historical documents.

I recently read this book for graduate school and highly recommend it. This book was written in 1940 and while critics have been able to pick at a few details within the book, noone has every successfully disproven his entire thesis - that the rise of industrial capitalism would not have been possible without the existence profits derived from slavery and the slave trade. Williams does a splended job of illustrating how slavery influenced all facets of the triangular trade, which in turn shaped Britian into an economic power. It also brings put the economic reasons for the abolitionist movement (namely, that abolitionists were motivated by free-trade, no necessarily compassion in their opposition to the slave trade).This is a must-have book for anyone interested in a strictly economic look at slavery, it's rise, fall and demise.

This is a very, very excellent piece of work. I read and studied this book when I was a teenager in high school in Trinidad. At that time I was required to study the book as part of our Caribbean History syllabus. That was over 13 years ago. So as an adult I decided to purchase the book and appreciate the information. And boy this was the best decision I ever made. I recommend people of all races and backgrounds to read this book. As the first Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago Dr. Eric Williams has left us with a gift.

Eric William's mid 20th century history of slavery in the Caribbean and North America is a refreshing read after the depressing and biased views of "Caste". A proper understanding of the history of any period requires an understanding of the way people thought at that time as well as the great historical and technological developments of the times. "Slavery and Capitalism" provides that historic perspective. Four hundred years ago the European powers were in competition for colonies, wealth, trade and power like Russia, China and America are today.
This competition was being rocked by disruptive technologies of the Industrial Revolution while new economic and
political theories were being debated, again, not unlike today.

Seeing it in print solidified what elders have told me

Eric Williams described his book, first published in 1944, as "an economic study of the role of Negro slavery and the slave trade in providing the capital which financed the Industrial Revolution in England and of mature industrial capitalism in destroying the slave system" (1). What exactly does that mean? It means that Williams thinks that the Industrial Revolution in England required capital, and that that capital came in the form of the wealth that flowed into England as a result of its slave trade and slave labor. But, once the Industrial Revolution took off, it favored international free trade. This was something different from England's closed, monopolistic, colonial system, which featured slavery and depended on it.

In other words, Williams says that slavery was an essential part of what generated the Industrial Revolution. But later, the Industrial Revolution created the economic climate in which slavery was abolished. Here's exactly how he puts it: "The commercial capitalism of the eighteenth century developed the wealth of Europe by means of slavery and monopoly. But in so doing it helped to create the industrial capitalism of the nineteenth century, which turned round and destroyed the power of commercial capitalism, slavery, and all its works" (210).

This book is a classic example of Marxist historiography. That is to say, this book exhibits a view of history according to which economic factors are what determine the outcomes. Change over time can be explained in economic terms. As Williams himself puts it at the end of his book, "The decisive forces in the period of history we have discussed are the developing economic forces" (210).

There is a second way in which this book exhibits a Marxist reading of history. This type of historiography often seeks to make oppressed people self-conscious, aware of who they are and what they have contributed to the world. Williams was himself from the West Indies. Evidently, he was a descendant of West Indian slaves. His message in this book to his fellow West Indians goes something like this: "Listen, that wonderful, all-important series of events and developments called the Industrial Revolution didn't just happen because some white Europeans invented a few machines. It happened because England had the necessary capital and infrastructure. And all of that was there as a result of slaves in the West Indies. It never could have happened without our black ancestors."

I haven't said much about the content of this book. I've mostly explained the basic argument and where that kind of argument is coming from, and where it is going. Regarding the book as a whole, I'd say that it's a brilliant, classic piece of work. Overstated and lopsided? Yes. Cynical and uncharitable towards abolitionists in England? Yes. But brilliant nonetheless. Read it for yourself and see what you think.