Sat Oct 14 07:33:32 PDT 2000

We'll have to agree to disagree about the credibility about Genovese's theory. Naturally G and I have read all the other material you mention, and it plays into the analysis of American slavery he developed and which I pretty much accept. You and I disgree about its meaning and plausibility. I will only comment on the theoretical point:

In a message dated 10/14/00 12:56:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time, furuhashi.1 at writes:

<< Slave owners could _do without_ the consent of slaves, because the

federal & other governments were on their side. Local majorities of

slaves meant nothing, when the governments supported by the hegemonic

bloc of slave owners, capitalists, non-slave-owning whites, etc.

could be counted upon to enforce the laws that kept blacks enslaved

(& returned them to owners if they ran away). >>

But of course this destroys the very idea of a theory of hegemony, because the federal and state governments support the ruling class in any event and in all class society--that is what makes that class the ruling one. I don't think that it's very plausible that the slaveowners felt that the slaves had no interests they had to take into account, contrary to what Taney thought. --jks

More information about the lbo-talk mailing list