How can commodities "consent" in the Gramscian sense? Isn't the essence of modern capitalist slavery -- unlike wage labor -- the absence of "consent," whether one theorizes "consent" a la Gramsci or social contract theorists? (BTW, do you think that so-called "comfort women" -- women _forced_ to serve Japanese soldiers sexually -- "consented" in the Gramscian sense? It would be so _grotesque_ to stretch Gramsci's theory of "hegemony" to include rape!)
Gramsci wrote: "The 'spontaneous' consent given by the great masses of the population to the general direction imposed on social life by the dominant fundamental group [ie, through their intellectuals who act as their agents or deputies]; this consent is 'historically' caused by the prestige (and consequent confidence) which the dominant group enjoys because of its position and function in the world of production" (12). In modern capitalist slavery, "consent" was never "spontaneous"; nor were slaves "intellectually led" by the hegemonic class's organic intellectuals because of their "prestige."
Gramsci's notion of "consent" makes sense only _within_ his theory of "leadership" (or "hegemony"): "The methodological criterion on which our own study must be based is the following: that the supremacy of a social group manifests itself in two ways, as 'domination' and as 'intellectual and moral leadership'. A social group dominates antagonistic groups, which it tends to 'liquidate', or to subjugate perhaps even by armed force; it leads kindred and allied groups. A social group can, and indeed must, already exercise 'leadership' before winning governmental power (this indeed is one of the principal conditions for the winning of such power); it subsequently becomes dominant when it exercises power, but even if it holds it firmly in its grasp, it must continue to 'lead' as well" (57-8). Slaves were never slave owners' "kindred and allied groups" who "consented" to their rule; nor did slave owners exercise "intellectual and moral leadership" over slaves. Slave owners _did_ "lead" _non-slave-owning whites_ in the South (as well as a significant number of Northern whites), and with their "consent" and support, they dominated & subjugated slaves by armed force; and in the course of importing & using up slaves as commodities, especially in the early days of Negro slavery, they "liquidated" an appalling number of enslaved Africans: "between 10 and 16 million Africans were forcibly transported across the Atlantic between 1500 and 1900. But this figure grossly understates the actual number of Africans enslaved, killed, or displaced as a result of the slave trade. At least 2 million Africans--10 to 15 percent--died during the infamous 'Middle Passage' across the Atlantic. Another 15 to 30 percent died during the march to or confinement along the coast. Altogether, then, for every 100 slaves who reached the New World, another 40 had died in Africa or during the Middle Passage" (at <http://www.hfac.uh.edu/gl/sl10.htm>).
Yoshie