of the time "Free Soil" Party and the like.
Charles Brown
Detroit
>>> James Farmelant writes
I would argue that there were in fact several contradictions between slave capitalism and free capitalism. The first one is the one that Charles mentions namely that widespread reliance on slave labor would constitute a limitation on capital's ability to realize the surplus value that labor (whether free or slave) creates for capital. Secondly, the very fact that slaves were a superexploited stratum means that there is little incentive for planters or other exploiters of slave labor to substitute machines for people. Under free capitalism labor costs were often a major part of production costs and wages could be forced up either by labor shortages and/or by concerted actions of workers in class struggles, therefore there was a strong incentive for capitalists to reduce their unit labor costs by turning to technology. Slave capitalism provided much weaker incentives to slaveholders for developing the forces of production. Third, slave capitalism could not provide the range of incentives to slave laborers for spurring productivity that free capitalism could offer (or force upon) free laborers. Finally, free capitalism had the advantage that surplus laborers could be easily discharged when their services were no longer needed. The disposal of surplus slave laborers was much more difficult although planters attempted to get around this by contracting out surplus slaves either to fellow planters or in some cases to industrial enterprises. In short while slavery played an essential role during capitalism's period of primitive accumulation it came to constitute a fetter on further development of the forces of production. Therefore, as Charles notes it eventually came into contradiction with the free capitalism that was developing on the basis of industrialization. Hence, the increasingly bitter and ultimately violent conflicts between the planter class and other sections of capital.