Mandle - Plantation Economy: An Essay in Definition

Guilford Press
The Plantation Economy: An Essay in Definition

Author(s): Jay R. Mandle
Source: Science & Society, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Spring, 1972), pp. 49-62
Published by: Guilford Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40401614
Accessed: 04-06-2019 03:35 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Guilford Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Science
& Society
This content downloaded from 128.122.149.96 on Tue, 04 Jun 2019 03:35:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
THE PLANTATION ECONOMY:
AN ESSAY IN DEFINITION
JAY R. MANDLE
RECENT WORK of A. G. Frank and the comments

which it has stimulated, especially those of Ernesto
extend to the Western hemisphere a debate which or
was concerned with Western Europe.1 Twenty years a
pages of Science & Society, Paul M. Sweezy and Maur
among others, engaged in a discussion which centered on
to specify the essential elements of feudalism and capitali
understand the nature and timing of the transition from on
to the other.2 In the more recent case of Frank and Laclau, the de-
bate centers on the question of whether Latin American societies
from the sixteenth century onward should properly be considered
feudal or capitalist. In this case the question is posed so as to cast
light on the failure of Latin and other New World societies to
achieve high levels of economic development.
In the present paper we attempt to do two things. In the first
place we examine and analyze the methodological differences which
separate the participants in these discussions. In the second, on the
basis of this analysis, we apply the tools and definitions which seem
most useful to several different societies in the New World. In the
course of doing so we consider whether plantation-dominated soci-
eties might have a set of social relations which distinguish them from
both feudal and capitalist societies, the categories which are em-
1 Andre Gunder Frank, Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America (New
York, 1967) and Latin America: Underdevelopment or Revolution (New York, 1969);
Ernesto Laclau, "Imperialism in Latin America," New Left Review, May/June,
1971, 67.
2 This debate which includes seven articles by five authors has been reprinted as a
symposium by Science & Society under the title The Transition from Feudalism to
Capitalism (New York, 1963). Hereafter, this will be referred to as The Transition.
49
50 SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
ployed by all of the authors cited. A

the conception of a "plantation socie
Despite the different regions with
think it is fair to argue that Sweezy
and Laclau in opposition to them
logical core and a common analyt
Frank argument places great stress
in defining the character and the
ciety. In the original discussion wi
argues that "the crucial feature of
tem of production for use. The nee
and production is planned and orga
these needs."3 Further, he argues th
the decisive factor in bringing abo
pean feudalism."4 In contrast, Dobb
He declares that feudalism was "vir
usually mean by serfdom: an obli
force and independently of his ow
nomic demands of an overlord, wh
form of services to be performed o
in kind."5 While conceding that ". .
and of trade played an important ro
tion of the old mode of production
exercised its influence to the extent
conflicts within the old mode of pr
sulted from ". . . the inefficiency of
tion, coupled with the growing need
. . . since this need for additional r
the pressure on the producer to a p
literally unendurable."7
A similar definitional disagreeme
Though Frank nowhere clearly defin
he acknowledges that his work "...
the metropolis-satellite structure of
3 The Transition, p. 2.
4 Ibid., p. 8, fnte, 10.
5 Maurice Dobb, Studies in the Developmen
7 Dobb, Studies in the Development of Capita
8 Frank, Capitalism and Under development in
THE PLANTATION ECONOMY 51
his work concentrates on the unequal ma

emerge within the international capitalist
mestic economics. For Frank, as with Sw
which produces for long-distance markets, a
necessarily had to do, given the circumst
capitalist system, and this is the case even
try was at best in a transitional stage bet
talism.
Disagreeing with Frank, and himself paralleling the arguments

of Dobb, Laclau cites the cases of Mexico, Peru, Bolivia, and Guata-
mala where, he argues, during the period under consideration labor
coercion continued to prevail and the alienation of property still had
not proceeded very far in these societies.9 Accordingly, the argument
states that it is inappropriate to describe these economies as capitalist.
Similarly in the West Indies the economies were characterized by
slave labor while in mining areas a form of disguised slavery emerged,
again requiring at the least that these regions be considered non-
capitalist.10 Thus while Frank and Sweezy argue that developed mar-
ket relations, especially in international trade, are the key to both
the definition and the evolution of capitalism, Dobb and Laclau ar-
gue that the circumstances surrounding the domestic labor force and
their conditions of employment are central to both of these issues.
Though each side in this debate appeals by quotation to the au-
thority of Marx to legitimize its position, the Dobb-Laclau position
is much closer to orthodox Marxism than the Sweezy-Frank view.11
By emphasizing the conditions of employment of the labor force,
Dobb and Laclau at least attempt to define the "relations of pro-
duction" in the historical context in which they are dealing, some-
thing which Sweezy and Frank fail to do. Similarly, in seeing the
dynamics of historical change as residing primarily in the conflict
between the inefficiency of the organization of production and the
increasing needs of the current ruling class, Dobb and Laclau hy-
pothesize a conflict between the forces of production (improving
9 Laclau, "Imperialism in Latin America/' pp. 25, 28, 30.
10 Ibid., p. 30.
11 This seems to be the case with respect to method despite the fact that E. J. Hobs-
bawm considers Sweezy's position on the transition from feudalism to capitalism
closer to Marx's actual historical description than Dobb's. Karl Marx, Pre-capitalist
Economic Formations, "Introduction" by Eric J. Hobsbawm (New York, 1964),
p. 46.
and increasingly efficient technolog

tion (the social organization of prod
suggested by Marx, while Frank an
possible source of historical change.
Sweezy-Frank position, while broad
framework by employing the Marxist
resents a significant departure from
emphasis on external market relatio
trast to seeing dynamism emerging f
developing technology and the socia
To say this, of course, is not by
they depart from classical Marxism S
wrong. On the contrary, such an at
conventional Marxism has been only
in the history of radical scholarsh
of reinterpretation is doubly emph
himself agrees that evidence supporti
plentiful nor conclusive/' while at
by no means denies ". . . that the g
trade played an important role in a
the old mode of production."12 In
Frank emphasizes, we are dealing
origins were the result of the expan
alone meant that the degree to whi
tance trade was much greater than in
sult, it is entirely plausible to argue
might have placed too little empha
in which a society functioned as a
society- a view which seems close to
sis by Sweezy and Frank. In any ev
latter ought properly be considered
fered in the framework of Marxism.
gated both with respect to its inter
explain the dynamics of the real w
With that said, however, it is rea
grave weaknesses in the Sweezy-Fra
while Sweezy sees international mar
12 Dobb, Studies in the Development of Capi
growth and as a mechanism of transformi

a progressive one, Frank sees that same p
sponsible for the long-term stagnation of
omies. For Sweezy the growth of long-dist
superior efficiency of more highly specialize
gains to be made by producing for the m
mediate use and the greater attractiveness
er." These were the factors which ". . . made
before the new system . . . would win ou
other hand, participation in such trade has
ment in the peripheral satellites whose eco
priated, while generating economic develop
centers which appropriated that surplus. .
The important point to note is that each
interpretations of the impact of participa
kets has had empirical confirmation in t
this is the case, it obviously is not trade
whether a country or area stagnates or e
with respect to the negative effects of trad
to that advanced by Gunnar Myrdal15 an
that resources are expropriated from one
other involves at least the implicit assum
entrants exercises considerable market pow
example, the metropolitan country acts as
likely that the prices received for the sat
normally low. Similarly, assuming that t
olist with respect to the supply of goods
land, the prices charged will be relatively
of a monopsonist and monopolist are extr
to argue that in the context of New Wor
degree of market power may well have
would not be surprising, at least in Latin
with the establishment of artificially
goods and artificially low prices for dome
resources were drained from the satellite
try in much the way Frank describes.

14 A. G. Frank, Capitalism and Under development, p. 3.
15 Gunnar Myrdal, Economic Theory and Underdeveloped Regions (New York, 1957).
If, however, one does not make

in market power, the Sweezy argum
expanding trade has a high degre
bears a marked resemblance to the
Long-distance trade presumably
increases the number of potentia
tunities. This, in turn, provides in
nessmen to initiate production, an
to remove social obstacles which
tion and the achievement of imp
then, profits are achieved, and ar
trast to the Frank case where the
output and improving efficiency
of participating in long-distance t
Two issues then are central in i
retardative effect or the Sweezy e
increasing market participation.
power which exists between trad
tent to which there are supply r
portunities. But clearly in both
tional trade- either positively or
with the internal conditions of th
self. Whether or not resources ar
another depends upon the relativ
which, in turn, reflects the dev
of each. Whether a metropolitan
olist, and hence drain resources,
the hinterland country is success
ket outlets and widening its stru
which a métropole can act as a m
of the satellite to find new sources
import-substitution.
Alternatively, whether trade is
upon the ability of the society to r
Three responses are possible to a
only one of which is developmen
international market may expan
to take advantage of the situation
In the second case the response to
form of expanding output, but within th

traditional technology and social structur
sponse, characteristic of large parts of t
achieve either the efficiency improveme
required by economic development. Finall
a dynamic response to market growth wit
methods of production and social organiz
The crucial point is that the effects of
largely determined by what goes on insi
to which market power either is achieved
depends on the internal capacity of the econ
modernization of technology and institut
widening markets similarly depends upon
It is this- the determinant role of internal structure- which accounts
for the fact that these two theorists concerned with the importance of
international trade come to opposite conclusions with respect to
its stimulative or retardative effects. For in the case which concerns
Sweezy, Europe in the late middle ages, there was generally a rough
equality between trade participants at least to the extent that no
area possessed an obvious technological superiority sufficient to ex-
ercise market power. At the same time wide areas of European so-
ciety were opening up sufficiently to allow the dynamic effects of
trade to be the dominant influence. In the Latin American case,
however, this was obviously not the situation, especially since the
New World societies were established to service specific European
needs. As a result, expanding trade merely reinforced the original
rigid social structure. In short, trade provides alternative avenues of
change. Which avenue is realized, however, depends not on the
trade itself, as Sweezy and Frank would have it, but on the nature of
the response to the widening market.
II
To argue that internal structure is the key to social dynamism

leaves open, of course, the question of which elements of the society
are most important in defining different social structures. As we have
seen, Dobb argues that the crucial distinction between feudalism and
capitalism centers on the social relations of the labor force. A labor
force free to sell its labor power is considered characteristic of a
capitalist economy, and where restr

dom and/or a tie to the land is maint
ket participation, feudalism prev
pointed out, the effect of so defining
cieties is to make feudalism somethin
an important degree of asymmetry
capitalism and leaving feudalism as
capitalist societies. Its result has be
vast category of feudalism which s
lennia, and ranges from say, the e
France in 1788, from the tendencie
eve of the Spanish conquest to czar
tury."16
For analytic purposes, the definitional imprecision involved in
utilizing the same category to describe such a diffuse collection of
societies is highly unsatisfactory. Indeed, it is significant that even
Laclau, in the course of his critique of Frank, shies away from the
use of the word feudal in describing Latin societies, moving to the
hardly more satisfactory term "semi-feudal." Interestingly, Bettel-
heim uses that same phrase to describe modern Indian rural condi-
tions,17 suggesting that the avoidance of the phrase hardly lessens the
confusion involved in failing to specify the components of non-
capitalist, but yet not really feudal societies. This is especially so if
by feudalism we mean something close to what existed in Europe
in the middle ages. In the argument that follows the effort will be to
develop a general framework which will be useful in analyzing the
pattern of development achieved in the New World.
Since the late 17th century the plantation has been the dominant
unit of production in many parts of the New World. Charles Wagley
has described "plantation America" as extending ". . . from about
midway up the coast of Brazil into the Guianas, along the Caribbean
coast, throughout the Caribbean itself and into the United States."18
In this extended region the technological and organizational char-
acteristics of the dominant productive units have decisively influ-
16 Eric J. Hobsbawm (ed.), Pre-Capitalist Economic Formations by Karl Marx (New

York, 1964), p. 63.
17 Charles Bettelheim, India Independent (New York and London, iyo»), p. zz-ss.
18 Charles Wagley, "Plantation America: A culture apnere, in vera jvuum vcu./,
Caribbean Studies: A Symposium (Seattle, 1960), p. 3.
enced the pattern of change and developm

perienced. Organization of these units has
very low incomes for the bulk of the popu
time yielding profits high enough to attrac
vestors and corporations: low levels of la
continual and generally successful search fo
and reduced costs of production; a vigorou
national commodity markets, but virtually
kets either for produce or for labor; and fi
force control which has extended from slav
as late as 1888, to other mechanisms such as in
share-cropping, or the contrived absence of al
labor force could turn. Quite clearly in thei
their profit orientation and their heavy parti
trade, the economies of "plantation Ameri
non-feudal propensities. At the same time,
labor force control either through slavery or
mechanism makes it impossible by Dobb's de
as capitalist. For analytic reasons, therefor
economies of the New World where planta
"plantation economies" by which we mean
considered neither capitalist nor feudal an
dynamic pattern based upon the technol
which inhere in the plantation as the domi
New World scholars have contributed an extensive literature to
the discussion of plantations. Typically, in defining what they mean
by a plantation, writers emphasize its commercial characteristics, its
relatively large scale of production and its labor-intensive, low-skill
methods of production. Thus, for example, in the International En-
cyclopedia of the Social Sciences, William O. Jones defines a planta-
tion as "... an economic unit producing agricultural commodities
... for sale and employing a relatively large number of unskilled
laborers whose activities . . . are closely supervised."19 However,
this kind of definition, which receives wide currency in the litera-
ture, is misleading since it confines the meaning of the phrase to the
productive unit itself and ignores the distinctive kinds of social
relations which emerge from the plantation structure.
19 David Sills (ed.), The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, XII, p. 154.
A starting point in the search for

is provided by anthropologist E. R
"wherever the plantation has arisen
from the outside, it always destroy
imposed its own dictates, sometim
compulsion, yet always in conflict
the affected population. The plantat
ment of force, wielded to create and
workers and owners, connected hierar
seers and managers."20 What Wolf
plantation's use of force stemmed d
patterns of production. In order for
masses of low-wage undifferentiate
this need which accounted for the p
methods of congregating and disciplin
indigenous societies or importing w
in the circumstances of the New W
was relatively scarce but the need f
kets could not be depended upon to
of workers at profitable wage rates. A
resorted to non-market mechanism
the first instance slavery-to achiev
But it is precisely this-the use of
gregating and utilizing labor- which
dominated economies from capitalist
upon to allocate labor.
A plantation economy then not on
its production function and typica
markets, but also by the distinctive
trol which emerge from it. Where
manpower requirements are such t
to set the pattern of social relation
tant implications for the wider soci
in which, because of the plantation
characteristic chronic relative short
kind of production, some form of c
20 Eric R. Wolfe, "Specific Aspects of Plant

munity Sub-Cultures and Social Classes," in
(Washington, 1959), p. 136.
manpower requirements. As a result of t

skilled labor on the estates is the only em
to the population, and ultimately such lab
the state through officially sanctioned leg
real sense is a domestic labor market ope
inated societies. At the same time, the pl
intensely profit-oriented commercial enterp
ily to changing international market signa
the volume of output which can be profitabl
a plantation society is marked by profound i
"modern" profit and market-oriented ru
based in the owner's plantations, dominate
tion, which is organized and employed str
Historically, several mechanisms of soc
fully supported plantation economies. Tho
dation upon which New World plantation
constructed, the history of these societies su
suggests that slavery alone did not define
pation did severely shake the hegemony o
survival under formally changed circumst
several different countries, indicates that ju
ple could be eliminated and yet the essent
tation society be retained. Thus in some
emancipation meant practically nothing t
because of the absence of unutilized land.
ex-slaves had no alternative employment
them and thus de facto were compelled to
estates as before. In other parts of the W
available and where the ex-slaves did vacat
tured immigration became the mechanism
dominated societies remained intact. Th
and to some extent in Jamaica, a state-sup
gration resulted in an annual supply of ne
the supply which came from the residen
the plantations were provided with a suf
supply of labor independently of the ope
These immigrants were legally required to w
ber of years on sugar plantations and it w
with official discouragement to the creation
which allowed the plantation to c

labor-intensive, low-income and
more than a century after emanc
Plantation America, such as the S
ping emerged as a new form of lab
the unit of ownership, the planta
administered as one single produc
"croppers" cultivated their own a
of the owner to whom a percenta
rental. Typically, the share-cropper
of his family to production, whil
even food from the owner. In re
credit, sales, and bookkeeping, t
overall control of production as
1935 summary of field studies pu
oped during slavery and it conti
pattern" under share cropping.22
In each of these cases the essent
of plantation agriculture were re
ductive assets by a small planter c
ternal markets, absence of a vital
productivity, low-wage labor, an
income. What therefore seems to
is not the form of the non-mar
mobilized in large numbers for l
but simply that some such non-m
indentured immigration, share-c
nance of monocultural plantation
antee the labor force requiremen
can do so in the absence of a viable labor market mechanism, an es-
sential aspect of a functioning capitalist economy. As a result, the
adaptability of the plantation system is greater than is sometimes
assumed, for wherever and under whatever circumstances such a
mobilization occurs, the plantation, with its attendant symbiotic
21 For a discussion of this process, see my Population and Economic Change in Guyana
(unpublished).
22 Charles S. Johnson, Edwin R. Embree, W. W. Alexander, The Collapse of Cotton
Tenancy, Summary of Field Studies and Statistical Surveys, 1935-35 (Chapel Hill,
1935), p. 10.
relations between the "modern" plantatio

"traditional" unskilled labor force, can pr
It is easy to show that a plantation orga
consistent with the process of modern eco
while development is typically character
new economic sectors, based on increasin
tivity, a plantation economy militates in th
the structure of output and continuity i
And it is precisely through the mechanis
are essential to the plantation society th
into operation. For as long as labor rema
factor of production, profit-maximizing e
tation owners will have no incentive to s
labor and thus raise levels of output per
domestic levels of income remain low, th
feel no strong incentive to turn from the i
they sell their staple to local markets. In
plantation societies in the New World pr
to the proposition that "rational" economi
ing firms, depending on the circumstances,
social economic development even as th
prosper.
Moreover, it is clear that neither expan
ternational markets can be relied upon to
structure. International market expansion
reinforce the plantation structure. This
supply of labor to the estates remains at
ments generated by the expanding marke
traction alone may serve to reinforce the
redundancy of labor created by declining
would serve to reinforce the pattern of p
estates.
The key to the plantation society rests in the mechanism of lab

force control which enables the estates to carry on productio
their characteristic pattern. And as we have seen there is no
such mechanism. In each case, however, the essential problem o
23 For a more detailed discussion of this see George Beckford, "Toward An A

priate Framework for Agricultural Development Planning and Policy." Social
Economic Studies, Vol. 17, no. 3, Sept., 1968.
plantation society involves the mob

number of low-wage workers to ena
carried out. Once this is done the p
prise and archaic labor relations whic
omy is made viable. Thus, in the co
firms made profits even though the
those profits resulted in the stagnation
they carried out production.
In conclusion, the argument prese
Laclau method of searching for th
sound. When this is done, however, a
centers on the mechanism by which
many New World societies seem not
ry of either feudalism or capitalism.
economies are characterized by the a
and as to the former, differences i
profound differences between New
European feudal lords with respect t
responsiveness, make it more confus
the phrase feudalism to both 15th ce
century Caribbean colonies. As a res
of the concept "plantation economy"
economic change experienced in We
Temple University
Philadelphia

Mandle - Plantation Economy: An Essay in Definition

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mandle - Plantation Economy: An Essay in Definition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guilford Press

The Plantation Economy: An Essay in Definition

RECENT WORK of A. G. Frank and the comments

ployed by all of the authors cited. A

his work concentrates on the unequal ma

Disagreeing with Frank, and himself paralleling the arguments

and increasingly efficient technolog

12 Dobb, Studies in the Development of Capi

growth and as a mechanism of transformi

13 The Transition, p. 10.

If, however, one does not make

form of expanding output, but within th

To argue that internal structure is the key to social dynamism

capitalist economy, and where restr

16 Eric J. Hobsbawm (ed.), Pre-Capitalist Economic Formations by Karl Marx (New

enced the pattern of change and developm

A starting point in the search for

20 Eric R. Wolfe, "Specific Aspects of Plant

manpower requirements. As a result of t

which allowed the plantation to c

relations between the "modern" plantatio

The key to the plantation society rests in the mechanism of lab

23 For a more detailed discussion of this see George Beckford, "Toward An A

plantation society involves the mob

You might also like