You're missing my point. The slave owner and slave encountered each other as lord and serf, not as employer and employee. Their consciousness was not formed by viewing each other as cogs in a capitalist cycle. That slavery was embedded in a larger capitalist structure is irrelevant, because people did not directly encounter that system in their daily lives. Racism is a product of having taken your serfs from a region in which people look different from you, which is an obvious foundation for basing an ideology upon.
I hereby suggest that any slave system in which the slaves looked appreciably different from the masters would result in a racist ideology.
--- On Sun, 10/11/09, wrobert at uci.edu <wrobert at uci.edu> wrote:
> This is incorrect to the point of
> being comical. As as has been noted
> before by myself, as well as others, capitalism is a system
> based in a
> particular concept of value, which expands towards a logic
> of surplus.
> That system can accommodate a multiplicity of social
> relationships. The
> U.S. was able to establish itself as a economic power
> through its
> industrial production of cotton. In addition, the
> entire structure of the
> slave trade was internal to the capitalist world system,
> from the
> entrepreneurs who bought and sold slaves, to the
> entrepreneurs who used
> that labor to produce massive profits in the United States,
> San Domingo,
> Cuba and elsewhere. There is nothing feudal about the
> relationship
> between the slaveowner and the slave, despite a set of
> fantasies that
> those owners would occasionally trot out to legitimate
> their particular
> structures of exploitation. robert wood
>