Dale Tomich - The Wealth of Empire

8/13/2019 Dale Tomich - The Wealth of Empire

1/26

Society for Comparative Studies in Society and History

The Wealth of Empire: Francisco Arango y Parreo, Political Economy, and the SecondSlavery in CubaAuthor(s): Dale TomichSource: Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 45, No. 1 (Jan., 2003), pp. 4-28Published by: Cambridge University Press

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3879480.Accessed: 14/11/2013 08:00

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.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 [email protected].

.

Cambridge University Pressand Society for Comparative Studies in Society and Historyare collaborating with

JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Comparative Studies in Society and History.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.47 on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 08:00:57 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3879480?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3879480?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup


2/26

The Wealthof Empire:FranciscoArangoy Parrefio,PoliticalEconomy,andtheSecond Slaveryin CubaDALE TOMICHDepartmentsof Sociology andHistory,BinghamtonUniversity

INTRODUCTIONPlanter, tatesman,and economicreformerFranciscoArangoy Parrehio1765-1837)was thespokesmanor Havana's mergentplanter lite andwasalsoamongthemajorarchitectsof Cuba'ssugarboomduring he firsthalf of thenineteenthcentury.'In 1792, in the midst of the slave insurrectionn Saint Domingue,Arango,ApoderadoGeneralof the Havanaayuntamiento, ddresseda seriesofmemorials o theSpanishCrownculminatingnDiscursosobre aAgricultura ela Habanay Mediosde Fomentarla Arango1793a:114-75). Thesedocumentsat once articulated he interests of the Havanaplanterclass and formulatedArango's program or the transformationf Cubaneconomic life. Widely re-gardedaskey textsof Cubanhistory, heyprovided he theoreticalramework orthedevelopmentof Cuba nto theworld's eadingsugarproducerromthe 1820sinto the twentiethcentury.At the same time, they expressthe creationof newzones of slave productionas partof thepoliticaland economicrestructuringfthe worldeconomy thatI have elsewherecalled the secondslavery Tomich1988).An examination f theseworksthuscalls attentiono the continual e-for-mation of slaveryand other formsof compulsory abor as partof the historicaldevelopmentof thecapitalistworldeconomyandto theways thathighly specif-ic local actionsatonce shapeandareshapedby global processes.

The Discurso drew its effectiveness fromArango'sacute awarenessof theways UnitedStates ndependence, heFrenchRevolution,and theHaitianslaveinsurrectionwere restructuringheAtlanticeconomy,and his profoundunder-standingboth of thepossibilities hat hispoliticaleconomicconjuncture penedI would like to thankRolphTrouillot,ArcadioDiaz-Quifiones,AnifbalQuijano,JoanScott,AlbertHirschman,AntoniFuri6,ChrisSchmidt-Nowara,LuizaMoreira,Rafaelde BivarMarquese,MarkFrezzo, JuanGiusti,RichardYidana,andthe two anonymousreviewersfor ComparativeStudiesin Society and Historyfor theirencouragementand for theircommentson variousdrafts of thismanuscript.0010-4175/XX/4-28$9.50 ? 2003SocietyforComparativetudyof SocietyandHistory4

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.47 on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 08:00:57 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/26

THE WEALTH OF EMPIRE 5up forCuba andof whatwas required orCubato takeadvantageof thesecon-ditions(Benitez-Rojo1986:10-12). Arango'sconcernwasto secureconditionsfor Cuba's long-termdominanceover the tradein tropical goods, above allsugar, beyond the immediate advantagefrom what he then perceived to bethe temporarydisruptionof orderin the neighboringFrenchcolony (Arango1793a:143). At this decisive moment, he systematically conceptualizedtheemergingconditionsof theAtlanticeconomy fromthe perspectiveof the Ha-vanaplanterelite. Thekeystoneof his proposalswas his call for the free entryof slaves intoCubaandfortheremovalof Spanishmercantile estrictionsn or-der to permitfree trade n tropicalproducefor Havanaplanters.Inhis concep-tion, free tradewent hand in hand with the expansionand renovationof sugarproduction hrough he systematicapplicationof slave labor,agricultural ndindustrial mprovement,andbetter slave management.His projecttheoretical-ly andpractically econstituted laverelationsandsugarproductionwithinneweconomic, political, and ideological domains and formulateda programforCuba'seconomic and social transformation.

Emphasison theAtlanticdimensionof Arango'sthoughtreveals its innova-tive character.ntheseworks,therevitalizationof slave laborandexpansionofthe sugar rontier nCubaappearnot asthepersistenceof archaiceconomic andsocial forms, but as active and formativeaspects of what GiovanniArrighirefers to as theBritishsystemiccycle of accumulation Arrighi1994:47-58,159-238), the restructuring f worldeconomic andpoliticalrelationsthatco-incidedwith free tradeand the integrationof worldmarkets, he industrial ev-olutionin Britain,the crisis of colonial slaveryin the British and FrenchWestIndies,andanti-colonialrebellionelsewhere in LatinAmerica.Arango's proj-ect itselfis articulatedwithinmodem formsof thought.The newdisciplineof po-litical economy providesArangowith the meansto formulatehis program orincreasing hewealthof Cubaand hisjustificationfor slavery.He re-conceptu-alizes slave laborwithin the frameworkof free trade,individualself-interest,efficient management,and systematic technological innovation.Indeed, theDiscurso demonstratesnot the incompatibility,nor even the simultaneousco-existence of liberal deas andpro-slavery hought,but theways thesepositionsderivefromthe sharedconceptualfield of political economy.This commongrounding s perhapsnowheremoreevident than n Arango'stheoreticalaffinitywith andappropriation f Adam Smith.Despite the differ-ences betweenthem,theproximitybetweenthesetwo thinkers, temming romtheircommontheoreticaloriginin physiocracyandagrarianhought,and fromtheirconceptionsof freetrade, abor,andself-interest,give grounds o questiontheboundariesandsupposedantimoniesbetweenpro-slavery houghtandlib-eral political economy. Examinationof the Discurso and other texts at oncediscloses the compatibilityand interdependenceof liberalpolitical economyandpro-slavery hought nArango'sprojectandproblematizesSmith's iberal-ism by drawingout the ways that it is compatiblewith slavery.



4/26

6 DALE TOMICHThisinterpretationmaybe contrastedo approaches hatregard lavery n theAmericas as an anomalous or archaic social and economic relationthat is ir-reconcilablewith modernforms of productiveorganization,market,and state(e.g. Williams 1944; Genovese 1967; Moreno Fraginals 1976, 1978; Lewis1983). Fromthis latterperspective,slaveryis destinedto be supersededby theemergence of a liberal economic, political, and social order. Such interpre-tationscontinually uxtaposea linearconceptionof (liberal,capitalist)moder-nity againstan equally linearconceptionof pre-modern lavery.Here, the so-cial relationsof slavery may coexist with the world marketandliberalism,buteach term is conceived as an independent, nternallyunified,andmutuallyex-clusive social category(see, for instance,Lewis 1983:97-98, 141-42). Theseabstracted ttributes re localized in discretesocial spaces,eachof which is as-signed a distinctivetemporality.Thus,Cubaremainsfixed as the site of slav-ery and racial ideology, while true capitalism,the real bourgeoisie, and au-thentic liberalismaretaken to occur elsewhere.From this perspective,the coexistence of slavery,the free market,and En-lightenment hought,both internationally ndas partof the worldview of theCreole elite itself, is regardedas at once a definingfeatureanda centralpara-dox of the nineteenth-centuryCubanslave regime. Arango,the planterclass,Cubanslavery,andracialideology areexcludedfromfull membership n his-toricalmodernity.With one foot in the bourgeoisfutureand the otherin theremote slave past (Moreno Fraginals 1976:60), they are viewed as hybridproductsof the self-contradictory ttempt o combine irreconcilableopposites.The historyof slaveryin nineteenth-centuryCubais understoodas a narrativeof flawed andunfinished iberalism(Lewis 1983:144-45). Cubanslaveryandracial ideology are characterizedby their incompleteness and immaturity(Lewis 1983:149).Liberalpracticesand ideas are construedas out of place inthe colony: Colonialforms of liberalthoughtareviewed as deformedversionsof theirmetropolitan nalogues.The historical rajectory f Cubanslaveryandthe planterclass is definedby its failureto conformto the progressivedevel-opmentof liberalcapitalism.What is lost here is precisely the self-consciousness of the Cubanplanterclass and its projectof social and economic transformation. uchperspectivesareunableto conceive of the Cubanplanterelite as anactiveandreflexive sub-ject, engaged in practical activity and capable of appropriatingand trans-forming fields of knowledge and social ideas in order to grasp their histor-ical condition in their own terms and act practicallyon it (CarvalhoFranco1993:32-35). Instead,they presentCubanplantersas caughtbetween two al-readyformedandincompatiblebodiesof ideas: Onthe one hand,theirthoughtis imprisonedwithin ideological forms thatdirectlyreflect anterior,determi-nant,andvirtually mmobile slave relationsof production.On the otherhand,they arepassive recipientsof a fixed andcomplete liberalideology, which isimported rom the outside and which they are unablefully to assimilate.



5/26

THE WEALTH OF EMPIRE 7Rather than conceiving of the opposition of liberalism and pro-slaverythoughtas resultingfrom thejuxtapositionof distincttemporalities pre-mod-ernandmodern) n one place, I wouldlike to arguethat t is more fruitful hinkof these two intellectualcurrentsas expressionsappropriateo differentplacesin the same time-the time of the world market.The specificityof ArangoandCubanslavery duringthe nineteenthcentury s to be foundnot in the continu-ous interplayof homogeneous pre-bourgeoisand bourgeois forces, but in acompound, nternally omplex modernity hat s historically ormedwithinhet-erogeneousandpluralrelationsof slaveryandworldeconomy.Enlightenmentthoughtand liberalpolitical economy are not out of place in Cuba.Rather,they are constitutiveelements of Cubanpro-slaverythought.Indeed,I wouldlike to suggest that the particular onjunctureof liberalpolitical economy and

pro-slavery deas thatcharacterizeArango'sDiscurso discloses not an anom-aly within the nationalspaceof Cuba,but thetemporaldiscontinuityof slaveryin the Atlanticworld;thatis, the remakingof slaveryandworldinequalities na new cycle of accumulation.ARANGO, THE DISCURSO, AND THE CONJUNCTUREOF THE ATLANTIC ECONOMYSon of a prominentHavana amily,FranciscodeArango y Parrefiowas a lead-ing figureof thenascentHavanasugarelite. Thisgroup, ncludingsuchfiguresas Jos6Ignacio Echegoyen,Nicohis Calvo, IgnacioPedroMontalvoy Ambu-lodi (theCountof Casa-Montalvo),BonifacioDuarte,andNicolas Pefialver, e-shapedCubaneconomy andsociety in the firstpartof the nineteenthcenturyand transformedCuba into the wealthiest plantationcolony in the world(Amores 1998:19-20). Arangowas a new kindof intellectualwith a new rela-tionshipto power (Benftez-Rojas1986:9-14). His ideas most often found ex-pression in political memorials.Intellectuallyprecocious and well-educated,Arango studiedat the Seminariode San Carlosandthe Universityof Havanain Cuba,where he received a bachelor of law degree in 1786. After a periodpracticing aw beforetheAudiencia n SantoDomingo,he completedhis stud-ies in Spain,wherehe received his doctorof law degreein 1789. InMadrid,heattracted he attentionof high functionariesof the Court ncludingPrimeMin-ister Floridablanca.At the same time, he was a friendof GasparMelchordeJovellanos andotherfigures of the Spanish Enlightenment. n this milieu, hedevelopeda cosmopolitanoutlook.He was familiarwiththe worksof Raynal,Montesquieu,Quesnay,Smith,and Genovesi among others.Althoughhe hadnot yet attainedhis legal majorityby 1788, he was thenappointedApoderadoGeneral of the Havanaayuntamientoatthe age of twenty-three. n this capac-ity, he addressed heDiscurso sobre la agriculturade la Habanay MediosdeFomentarla to the Spanish Crown in 1791 (Ponte Dominguez 1937:5-13,26-49; Friedlaender1978:157-63; Marrero1984:8;onzIilez-Ripoll Navar-ro 1999:145-46).



6/26

8 DALE TOMICHArango draftedthe Discurso with great urgency following the arrivalinMadrid of the news of the slave insurrection n the Frenchcolony of SaintDomingue.The situation n the Frenchsugarcoloniesbeganto deterioratewiththe outbreakof revolution n France.But it was the slave uprising hat createdan unprecedentedopportunity or Cuba.Arango quickly graspedthe signifi-cance of the moment: ... seeing them [the French]immersedin a calamitythat,if it does not destroyall of the prosperityof thatcolony will retard t in-definitely, t is necessaryto look at it notonly withcompassion,but withpolit-ical eyes, and,with the faithof a good patriotand a good vassal, announce othe best of kingstheopportunity ndthe meansto give to ouragriculture f theIslandsadvantageandpreponderance ver thatof the French 1791c: 111-12).He urgedthe King that it was necessaryfor Cubato takeadvantageof the dis-

ruptionof Haiti in order o raise itself to a level of power and wealthcapableof withstanding ompetitioneven whenyourrivalrecovers.... Takeadvantageof themoment obring oyoursoil thewealththat he narrow erritory f Guari-co [SaintDomingue]gave to the Frenchnation 1793a:133).Arangowas concernedwith what wouldhappen o Cubaafterthe immediateeffects of Haitiwere over.The windfallprofits generatedby the revoltin SaintDominguewereinadequateo guaranteeCuba's ong-termdevelopment.Arangofeared hat he return o orderwould beruinous.He argued hat or Cuba o main-tain its positionin the face of EnglishandFrenchcompetition,agricultural ndcommercial eformwas anurgentnecessity: Theveryadvantage hatwe enjoytoday n the sale of sugarscanbe disastrousor us if we do not knowhow to takeadvantage f it. Ihavealready aid,andI repeat, hat f we wishto encourage hisbranchof industrywe must workas thoughwe werein the timespreceding heinsurrection f thenegrosof Guarico o thatwhenthey[theFrench] eturnwe donot findourselves n the sad condition hatwe werein before 1793a:143).The Discurso articulates ust such a systematic programof reform.In it,Arangobrings o bearboth the theoreticalperspectivesof politicaleconomyandEnlightenment houghtand his profoundpracticalknowledge of Cuba.Morethana pasticheof incompatiblepre-modern nd modemelements,this remark-abledocumentcombinesa theoreticallynformedvisionwithpracticalpoliticalconcerns.Thetext is organized n a formatsimilar o thatusedby Jovellanos nhis Informesobre Industriay Comercio(1790) and his Informesobre la LeyAgraria(1794). Itbegins with a summaryhistoryof Cubaneconomicdevelop-ment that contrasts he colony's stagnationunderSpanishmercantilistpolicieswith the growthandprosperity hat it experiencedas a resultof theEnglishin-vasionof 1762,whichpromoted heimportation f slaves andopencommercialpolicies.Arango hencompares hecolonialpolicies of Spain,England,France,andPortugal n order o identifyCuba'stechnical and economicdisadvantagesin relationto its chief competitors.Throughhis incisive anduncompromisingtreatment f theseproblems,Arangodiscloses the root causes of these difficul-ties andforcefullyadvocatesfull andimmediateexploitationof Cuba'spoten-



7/26

THE WEALTH OF EMPIRE 9tial forproductionof tropicalexport staples.Describedby historianLevi Mar-rero as themagnacarta or thesubsequentdevelopmentof thesugar ndustry,the Discurso not only arguesfor the particular eformsthattriggeredCuba'seconomictransformation,utgives conceptualcoherence opracticesandpoli-cies that were to guide Cubandevelopmentat least until 1868 if not beyond(Friedlaender 978:163-64; Marrero 984:15-16; MorenoFraginals1978:1, 3;Gonzailez-RipollNavarro1999:156-63).POLITICAL ECONOMY, AGRICULTURE, AND FELICIDADAlthoughthe Discurso is a policy proposal,not a systematictreatise, t none-theless demonstrates he Enlightenment ourcesof Arango'sthought.Arangohimself describeshis program or the economic and social transformation fCuba as one of propagating nlightenment propogar as luces). Indeed,heformulateshis projectfor increasingthe productivity rendimento)of colonialagriculturewithin the intellectual frameworkof political economy. The ap-pearanceof thisdiscipline during he second halfof theeighteenthcenturypro-vided a new vocabularywith whichto conceptualizewealthand theperceptionthatagriculture, ndustry,andcommercewere the meansto produceandaccu-mulateit (Tribe1978; Marquese1999. For analysis of the vocabularyof theDiscurso, see Perotin1974:273-313; Marrero1984:15).Evenif we donot seekto ascertain the genealogy of specific ideas in the Discurso, it is clear thatArangowas influencedby diverseneo-mercantilist,physiocratic,agrarian, ndliberaltheoristsincludingQuesnay,Jovellanos,Campomanes,Genovesi, andGalliani,as well as AdamSmith.In the last decadesof the eighteenthcentury,Enlightenedliberal agrarianssuch as Jovellanos and Campomanesdrew onphysiocraticargumentsaboutagricultureand free trade.Yet they were neitherdoctrinairephysiocratsnor even systematic theoreticaleconomists. Rather,theyusedpoliticaleconomic discourseas an instrument f practicalpolicy andprogressivereform.In a mannersimilarto that of otherLatinAmericanthink-ers, such as ArgentinesManuelBelgranoandMarianoMoreno,Arangoreliedon these apparentlyeclectic intellectualsources to diagnose the conditionofCuba and to elaborate he program hat would lay the groundwork or subse-quentCubaneconomicdevelopment LluchandArgemi 1985:1-120, 185-96;Friedlaender1978:161, 166-75; Maestri1938:8, 12; Travieso 1970:139-40;Venturi1972:180-224, 265-91; Chiaramonte1982:33-66, 105-78; Chiara-monten.d.:xii,xxviii-xxxiv).Arangodrawson the new disciplineof politicaleconomyto reassessthe na-ture andsourcesof wealthin theAmericas.He argues: No one still denies ordoubts thattruewealth consists of agriculture,of commerceandthe arts,andthat if America has been one of the causes of ourdecadence, t was becauseofthe disdain hatwe had for the cultivationof its fertile ands,becauseof thepref-erence andprotection hatwe accordto mining,and because of the miserablemethodwith which we conductourcommerce 1793a:115).



8/26

IO DALE TOMICH

This conceptionof wealth signals a decisive shift away from mercantilismandfromminingas the source of prosperitywithinthe Spanishempireandto-wardproductiveagricultureand commerce(Arango1789:79).Arangoidenti-fies theextractionof preciousmetals,mercantilism,monopoly,andthebalanceof tradeas causes of Spain's povertyand decadence.In oppositionto them,hedefends the enlightenedview that the prosperity(felicidad) of the na-tion . .. consists principallyin developing (fomentar) colonial agriculture(1791b:108). Viewed in this light, Arango's argument or the redeploymentofslave labor in Cubasignals not the persistenceof an alreadyexisting archaicform of social organization,but the revitalizationof the colonial economythroughagricultural roductionandtrade.Hebreaksdecisively from staticcon-ceptions of wealth basedon the dominationof fixed territorial paces thatarerepresentedby the colonial mining economy andmercantilism thespace ofplaces, Arrighi1994:80-81). Instead,he formulatesa dynamic conceptionofwell-being or abundance felicidad) as the resultof fertility,productiveactiv-ity, andthe circulationof commodities and wealth ( thespace of flows, Ar-righi 1994:82-83) thatcharacterizes he new conjunctureof worldeconomy.Inaccordancewithagrarian onceptions,Arangoheld thatCuba'sadvantageover othersugarproducersresidedin the superior ertilityof its soil. Its great-est potentialsource of wealthwas agriculture ndindustrybasedupon agricul-ture. ForArango,export crops,especially sugarandcoffee, were theappropri-ate activitiesfor Cubanagriculture, specially since no otherSpanishcoloniessuppliedsuchproducts. Thispreferencedefined and ustifiedthe sugarelite'sdominationnot only of slaves but also of cattle ranchersand tobacco small-holders.)Yet,he argued,commercialrestrictionsoff-set the naturaladvantageof Cuba'ssoil productivity.Such restrictions ncreased hecost of labor,equip-ment, and credit;impededtechnicalprogressand good management;and in-hibited the developmentof markets.ForArango, Spain's mercantilepolicieswere thecause of Cuba'storpor,andfree tradeprovided he meansto overcomeit (1793a:117-18).Arango'sdemandto increase the supplyof slave labor to Cubawas an inte-gral partof a comprehensive developmentproject hatwas grounded n prin-ciples of politicaleconomy.In the Discurso Arangore-conceptualizes lavery,agriculture, ndcommercetoredefineCuba'splacein theworldeconomic con-juncture.He links the necessity of free tradeandaccess to foreignmarkets,es-pecially that of the newly independentUnited States,to unrestricted ccess toslave laborand scientifictransformation f productionprocesses. Impliedhereis a reformulation f slaverywithin the new conditionsof science andtechnol-ogy, productivity,andfree trade, and, further, he understandinghat the mar-ket and free trade are the most efficient mechanismsfor determiningprice,quantityandqualityof goods (includingslaves). These are the means to pro-mote Cuba'sprosperityandpossible dominationof the worldsugarmarket.Arango, familiar with the most advancedpolitical economic ideas of his



9/26

THE WEALTH OF EMPIRE II

time, does not present slaveryas archaicor anomalous.He sees no contradic-tionbetween slave laborandfreetrade:Rather,he constructs laverywithinthepresuppositionsof free trade. In his view, slave laboris the means to achieveCuba's ntegrationntothe world marketandsecurethecolony's prosperityandprogress(1811:185). Conversely,free trade s the conditionfor the expansionandconsolidationof the Cubanslave system.THE SLAVE TRADE: LIBERTAD ABSOLUTAInArango's conception,the futureof enlightenedagriculture nd theprosperi-ty (felicidad) of the nationresteduponthe slave trade.He maintained hattheexperienceof three centuriesand reasonprovedthatthe exportstaples (frutosde retorno)of the Americancolonies-and not theirprecious metals-con-tributedn innumerableways to thewell-beingof themetropolis.However,thepromise of colonial agriculturewas undercutby insufficientpopulation.Al-thoughenlightenedadministrationswerepreoccupiedwiththe developmentofcommercialagriculture, he colonies lackedthe necessaryhandsfor the landsthatthey wished to cultivate.Arangolooked to the slave tradeto resolve thisproblem.The west coast of Africa,he contended,providedthe source of man-powerthatwasmostappropriateorthisproject 1789:79).Africanslaveswere,in his words, the handsthatwould animateagricultureandprovide [by theirlabor]abundant ruits 1788:77).InArango'sview,African slaves arethenecessarybuildingblock for the de-velopmentof plantationagriculturen Cuba,andfree trade was the means toobtainthem. He is concerned,above all, with the concreteconditionsof slavesupplyto Cuba,and his case for free tradeis presentedwithin the context oftactical imperativesand political conditions obtainingboth in Spain and inCuba.Itdevelopsas anargumentwithmonopolistsandvariousvestedinterestsoverroyalcidulas thatregulated he slavetrade orperiodsof limited duration.Nonetheless,Arangosustains the position that not only is free trade the mostadequateandefficientmeans to assurea sufficientsupplyof slaves but thatthemarketmechanismwill provide optimal conditions of quantity,quality,andprice.Inhis firstdocumentwrittenasApoderado n 1788,Arangowas determinedto seek theremedyfor whathe viewed as the evil causedby the scarcityof ne-gros in thecolony.Absolutelibertyto tradewithothernations n this branchofcommerce,he argued,would be the most useful remedy(1788:77). In the fol-lowing year, n his Primer apelsobreel commerciode negros, Arangoelab-orated hisargument.He criticizedSpain'sfailure o engagedirectly nthe slavetrade.He complained hatDenmark,Holland,Portugal,France,and,aboveall,Englandeach suppliedmore slaves to the Americas thanSpain.At the sametime, Spain'sneed forslaveswas greater hanthat of all of theotherscombined(1789:79). The only way for Cubato get out of this predicament,he insisted,was to obtainslaves from rival nations.Arangocontendedthatthe utility for



10/26

12 DALE TOMICH

colonial agriculture f absolutefree trade n slaves was so evidentas to requireno discussion. In his words, the advantagesthat grantingabsolute libertyto the nations will bring to the Americancolonist leap out at first glance(1789:80). Thenecessaryforce of marketcompetition,he asserted,wouldpro-duce a commodityin which price, means of payment,and ease of obtainingslaves for the colonial purchaserwere maximized(1789:80). In contrast,mo-nopoly was the least satisfactorysolution.A single firm,chargedwith provid-ing Cubawith negroes,he asserted,could tyrannizeus, bringing nsufficientnumbers of slaves of whateverquality they desire, and at arbitraryprices(1789:83).Arango's Primerpapel sobre el commerciode negros (1789) appearstohave influencedthe subsequent egislationof the slave trade.Theroyalcidulaof 28 February1789 brokethe monopoly system. It ran for two years and al-lowed all Spanishsubjectsto go abroad o buy slaves andbringthemto desig-natedports(initiallyHavanaandSantiago)wherethey could enterCubadutyfree. Foreign ships could also importslaves to Havanadutyfree,but hadonlytwenty-fourhours to unload theirships, andthe ships had to be less than300tons. The cidula did not attempt o fix pricesbut didregulateotheraspectsofthe trade(Murray1980:11).Arangoreassertedhis argument or free tradein 1791 when he petitionedthe Crownto extend its permissionto engage in free tradein slaves (Arango1791a:97-102). He opposeda simpleextensionof the cidula of 1789. His ar-gumentfor a longerextensionof free trade n slaves revealshis critiqueof themonopoly system and his conceptionof the role of the free market n supply-ingslavesto Cuba.Arangocompared hemonopolyheldby PhilipAllwood (theHavanaagentfor the Liverpoolfirmof BakerandDawson) before 1789 withthe precedingtwo year periodduringwhich the Crownhad opened the slavetrade.Negroes were scarceand expensive underAllwood's contract(Arango1791a:97-98). In contrast,Arangoreported hat some 4,000 slaves arrived nHavana n the first nineteen monthsfollowing the enactmentof the cidula of1789. This was followed by another2,000 arrivals n a subsequent wo-monthperiod.Almost half of the firstgroupwere importedby Bakerand Dawsonbe-cause of Allwood's strong ocal contacts.Arangoattributedhe increase n im-ports during the more recent period to the effects of the uprising in SaintDomingue.Unable to gain access to their normalmarketoutlet, slave tradersbrought heircargoesto Cuba.However,Arangowarned hatundernormalcir-cumstances,Cuba was not the most favorablemarket,and, for thatreason, itrisked the loss of the slave tradewhen orderwas restored n SaintDomingue(Arango 1791a:101). He arguedthat if, undersuch unstableconditions, theKing conceded to the local commercialauthoritieswho wantedto expel All-wood and otherforeigners presumablyo theadvantageof Cuban/Spanish n-terestswho wantedto controlthe slave tradethemselves),Bakerand Dawsonwould discontinuesendingslaves to Cuba,or worse. Cubawould thenbe re-



11/26

THE WEALTH OF EMPIRE 13

duced to dependingon one or another solated adventurerwho would be at-tractedto the great scarcity,or, to the wretchedalternativeof forcing its ownplanters o go themselves to findslaves in theother slands.(Thisargumentm-plies thatArangodid not necessarilywant to excludeAllwood, who, afterall,remaineda majorslave trader,but rather oughtto expose himto the disciplineof the marketandcompetition.Thispositionrecalls Smith'sview thatthe mar-ket competitionwould, in his words, constrain he meanrapacity and mo-nopolizing spirit of merchantsand manufacturers ndpromote nstead ndus-tryandfrugality(see McNally 1988:226-28).Arango argued hat Cubaneeded to reorganize he termsof its slave trade orthelong-termanddevelopa stableandnon-speculativemarketas thesurestsup-ply of slaves. In his view, the slave trade could not make firm and constantprogress f it weremaintainedon its current ooting (1791a:102). If the Crownwere to grantonly another wo-yearextensionof freetrade n slaves, such ashortperiodwouldmerelyencouragespeculatorswho wantedto make a quickprofiton theirfirstvoyage. Businessmenof standing,who werepreciselythosethatCubanswanted oattract, idnotexposethemselves nthisway.Instead, heyinvestedwiththesecurityof recoveringonthe secondorthirdvoyagewhattheymightlose on the first (Arango1791a:101-2). Seriousslaving requirednvest-ment and profits over the long term (cf. Smith 1976:1,98-110, 124-30). Ofcourse,such merchantswouldprovideCubawith a morestablesupplyof slaves(andperhapsof betterquality)atbetterprices.Arangomaintainedhat t was intheKing's nterest hathisAmericanvassals havethenegroes hat heyneededatthe lowestpricesandwith usttermsof payment.Consequently, e urged hat heunrestrictedraffic n slavesbe extended or six to eightyearsin order o securea non-speculativerade.Thus,even as his positionwas inscribedwithin tacticalnecessities,Arangoprovided he theoreticalustification or thesuperiority f themarketand freetrade libertadabsoluta)as a mechanismof supplyingslaves.FRUTOS DE RETORNO AND FREE TRADEWhile theDiscursocalled foropeningupthe slavetrade o Cuba, t furtherpro-vided a systematicargument or free trade n tropicalproductsas the meanstoincreasethewealthandprosperityof the island.Not only didArango argueforthe removalof mercantilist estrictionsandtheexpansionof theslavetrade,buthe also called forfree trade orCuba'sexports(especiallysugar,coffee, andto-bacco) in additionto free importationof the agriculturalmplementsandma-chinerynecessaryto improveCubanproduction Arango1793a:74).While theslave tradeandthe demandfor labor were the key elements in Arango'seco-nomic reformprogram, hey were tied to free tradefor the productsof Cubanagriculture.ForArango,the immediateproblemwas that Cubawas too poor in its cur-rentstateto generateanadequate lave trade 1791a:98-99). Inhis view, Cubawas at thebeginningof adevelopmental urve withhighdemand orslaves,but



12/26

14 DALE TOMICH

little ability to pay. Havana could not offer foreign slave tradersattractiveprices,promptsales, or securityof payment.Further,or those merchantswhodealtonly in slaves (i.e. those who specialized n the directtradebetween Cubaand Africa and were interested n a rapidturnaround),Cubaproducednothingthat could be exchanged for slaves on the African coast (1791a:99). Conse-quently,Arangoemphasizedthe need to generate ncomethatcould be used topurchaseslaves. He argued hatonly the income fromexportcrops,especiallysugar,offered a sufficientreturn o attract oreignmerchants.In the Discurso, then,Arangodelineatedthe interdependence f free trade,agriculturalproductivity,and Cuba's position in world markets.He demon-strated that in orderto develop their potentialproductiveadvantage,Cubanplantersrequireda cheapand abundant upplyof slaves andagricultural quip-mentthatcouldonlybe secured hrough ree trade.At the sametime,theyneed-ed largerand more profitableoutlets for theirproduce.Cubanexport stapleshad to be tradedwherethey brought hebestreturn.Onlythrough ts entry ntoexpandingandincreasinglycompetitiveworldmarkets,above all, that of theUnited States,could the Cubansugarindustrygenerate he revenuenecessaryto pay for slaves andother nputs(Arango1788:78).However, in order to place their productsin open marketsor in marketswherethey were at a disadvantage,Cubanplantershadto be competitivewithforeign rivals: marketcompetitionrequiredCubato increasethe productivityof its industry.ForArango,free tradewas importantnot simplybecauseit pro-vided unrestricted ccess to slaves, but because in itself, it created conditionsto revive Cubanagriculture. t wasnotenoughto securethe hands hatanimatedcolonial agricultureand provided abundantcrops, he insisted. The planter(labrador)had to be providedwith a rewardcorresponding o thehardshipshehad undertaken. n order to realize the value of new slave production, t wasnecessary to eliminate the obstacles to the profitable sale of his produce(Arango 1788:77;cf. Jovellanos 1968:112).The free entryof slaves andma-chineryin combinationwith profitableoutletsfor agricultural roductswouldstimulate heindustryandapplicationof the colonists(Arango1793a:118-19).Arango's policy was predicatedon Cuba'snaturaladvantagesover its com-petitors. Thenaturalorder, he declared, demands hatthe possessorsof themost fertile landsshouldgovernthis branchof agriculture sugar):but the ex-act opposite has occurred. 1793a:123; cf. Smith 1976:1, 385). Cubanagri-culturaldevelopmentwas subordinatedo Spanishmercantilistpolicy and therequirements f the Spanishstateand domesticmarket.Spaindid not providean adequateoutlet for Cubanproduction.Further,t subjectedCubanproducedestinedforforeignmarkets oheavytaxationandcommercialrestrictions.Un-der these conditions,once they had gainedfreedomto importslaves, Cubanshad no market or their increasedoutput(Arango 1793a:127-29). Theironlyalternative, n Arango'sview, was to find a permanentoutletfor theirproducein foreign markets. Tariffadjustmentsand regulationof the consumptionof



13/26


Cubanproducts n Spainwereinsufficient.Spanishpolicy hadto promotecon-ditions thatwould make Cuban ndustrycompetitivewith its rivals in foreignmarkets 1793a:122-23, 135-36). His goal was to establisha happyequilib-rium between the supply of slave labor and the productionof exportcrops(1788:77).WhileArango argued hatthe marketwas the most effective means for pro-vidingCubawithnecessary nputsof slave laborandagricultural quipmentaswell as outletsfor its produce,he emphasized herole of the statein promotingcompetitiveconditionsforproductivecapital.Insteadof subordinatingts com-mercialand colonialpolicies to metropolitannterests,Spainwouldhave to en-couragecolonialproduce o enter oreignmarketsandsupport hedevelopmentof colonialagriculture o that t couldcompete n them.Eachof themajorcropsof Cuba-sugar, tobacco,livestock(cattle),andaguardientede cahia-were inone way or anothersubject o heavy duties, taxation,monopoly,and restrictedaccess to markets hatlimited tradeand retardedheirdevelopment(1788:77-78). Arangomaintained hat no branchof agriculturen Havanahad arrivedatthe degreeof perfectionof which it was capable,andall of themhadpowerfulrivals with which they hadto compete (1793a:139-40). Insteadof subjectingcolonial industriesto duties andlimiting their access to foreign markets,thestate should treateachbranchaccording o its own condition.Like a good par-ent, the stateshould treatthem as childrenor adolescentsandaid andencour-age themuntilthey were ableto withstandcompetition rom theirpowerfulri-vals in foreignmarkets 1793a:139-40). The interestsof thetreasury houldbesubordinated o the free circulationof goods, the developmentof production,andincreasedabundance.Colonial industriesshouldbe supported,not taxed,until they were sufficiently strongto bear the weight of dutiesandprohibitivelaws (1793a:140).AGRICULTURAL REFORM: REASON VS. THE TYRANNY OF IGNORANCEFromArango's perspective,free trade n slaves and access to foreignmarketswould create the conditions for Cubandevelopmentand stimulateCubanpro-ducers.However, in order to be competitivewith the colonies of othercoun-tries in foreignmarkets,Cubanagriculture equired he ameliorationnotjust oftrade,butof productiontself.Arangoargued hat,althoughCubawasmore fer-tile thanits rivals, agriculturaland manufacturingechniques,slave manage-ment,andscientificknowledgewere superior n foreigncolonies. The Frenchand British colonies had greaterorder andeconomy in their sugarmills. Theequipmentand thetechniques hatthey employedwere superior o thoseof theCubans at each stage of the process of sugar production.Consequently, heywere able to produce sugar much more cheaply and efficiently than Cuba.(1793a:126-27; 1793b:180).The problem n Cuba,according o him,was notthe fertilityof the soil, but the ndustryof man (1793b:187).Arango arguedthat the different state of prosperityand vigor in which the



14/26

I6 DALE TOMICHFrench andEnglishheld commerce and the artsenabled theircolonists to en-joy all thegoods andimplements hattheyneeded at betterprices(1793a:124-25). He thereforeproposedan end to tariffs on the importationof agriculturalimplements n order o bringCuba to the level of its foreign competitors.Cubahadprogressedby allowingtheimportation f foreign mplements,but thesup-ply was farfromwhatwas needed. Duties on these items,Arangocontended,were a burden or the agriculturist,were of no advantage o the King, and didnot encourage ndustry n Spain.Machines andprimarymaterials,he insisted,werefree of duties n allenlightenednations(naciones ilustradas) 1793a:135-36). An open andcompetitivemarket or slaves andfree importationof agri-cultural mplementsandmachinerywould bringCubamoreor less to the lev-el of its foreignrivals (1793a:136).However,Arango nsisted hat solated nnovationswereinsufficient oresolveCuba'sproblems. nstead,he advocatedhesystematicadoptionof scientificagri-culturalandindustrial echniquesand the mechanization f Cubansugarmills.Arangoframedhis project or agriculturaleformwithinthe rhetoricof enlight-enment.In his view, thereformof Cubanagriculture ittedinterestand reasonagainstcustom.Thehold of customarypracticeswas strong n Cuba.Arango eltdespondentat seeing his compatriots, destituteof any principle,puttingtheirfaith nblindpracticeand,consequently, eing exposedto themostcrasserrors.Reasonwas worth ittleagainstanold,constant,anduniformlyobservedcustom(1793a:136).MostCubansremained ied to familiarpractices venin theface offavorable esults romnew ones. Successful nnovation ncountered kepticism,andthosewho sought odiscredit t andmake t appear idiculous.Reformwouldhave to overcomethe tyrannyof ignorance. Nonetheless,Arangoremainedhopefulthatself-interestwould stir the attentionof colonialplantersandobligethemto hear hevoice of reason(Arango1793a:136-37).Arango'spurposewas to propagateheenlightenment. He soughtnotonlyto adoptnew productive echniques,but to transform he scientific andpoliti-cal economic cultureof the Cubanplanterclass-to remakeboththe colonialeconomy andcolonial subjects.To this end,he proposeda commission to tourEuropeandtheneighboringFrenchandBritishsugar slandsto studythe meth-ods employedby French and Britishplanters. Whatwe must do, aside fromthediverseeconomic andpoliticalobservations hatmust be noted,is to see theorganization,utensils, and machines that the foreignersuse to cultivate andprocesstheircrops.We mustacquire rom all of them aprofoundknowledgeinorder ater o compare heforeignmethodswith our own in eachbranchof agri-culture and to see if the result gives us advantagesor disadvantages...(Arango1793a:164-65; see Gonzailez-RipollNavarro1999:198-205).

Arangoviewed the commission as partof a broadereffort to implantscien-tific agriculturen Cubaandto createanappropriatenstitutional ramework osupporta new critical and self-reflective orientationtowardproduction.Hecalled for the formationof an agricultural ociety, the JuntaProtectorade la



15/26


Agricultura, o promoteimprovedagriculturaland manufacturingechniquesandestatemanagement.Arangoenvisioned this Society as anautonomousor-ganizationunder he controlof the Havanaplanters hatcouldputthe resourcesof Cuba at the serviceof agriculturaldevelopment,above all, that of the sugarindustry. ts primaryconcernwould be to searchfor themost refinedmeanstopropagateEnlightenmentpracticesin agriculture buscar los medios mds ex-quisitosdepropagarlas luces sobrela agricultura)andto examineeach of theadvantages hat,according o thecommissioners'report, oreign agriculture n-joyed over Cubanagriculture.Thegoal of the Society wouldbe toemploytheweapon of reason in conversationsand discussionsin order o demonstrate othe public its interest[my emphasis]andto lead it to abandon ts long-estab-lished concerns Arango1793a:156-57; MorenoFraginals1978:1,106-7). Inaddition,Arangostressed the need to make the mostrecenttechnicalinforma-tion availableto Cubanplantersand to bringto Cubathe scientificknowledgeof physics, chemistry,botany,and political economy that it so badly needed(See MorenoFraginals1978:1,131-33). Arangocalledfor thecombinedeffortof governmentandenlightenedplanters o developtechnicaland scientificed-ucation to support he sugar industry, mprovethe technicallevel of qualifiedlabor,and reform slave management 1793a:136-38).FREE TRADE AND EMPIRE

Arango'sconceptionof free tradeandproductivecolonial agriculturedramat-ically redefinestherelationsbetweenmetropolisandcolony. His frameof ref-erenceis not the nationalpolitical spaceof Cuba,butrather he Spanish-Amer-ican empire. He describes himself not as Cuban, but as habanero andhacendado, and he writesas a vassal of the King.While he regardsHavanaas his patria (Arango 1788:77;Amores 1996:512-13), the Discurso suggeststhathe treatsthe nation as a political entitythatencompassesboth the penin-sula (Spain)and the overseas territories.His conceptionof riquezanacionalreferssimultaneously o the wealth of both.In his project,economic life is not subordinatedo the social orpoliticalor-der. Instead, economic relations shape the social order.Different socioeco-nomic sectorsandrelationsareevaluated n termsof profitabilityandproduc-tivity, not substantivepolitical or social relations.Spain and Cuba are to belinkedthroughrelationsof privatepropertyandthemarket. ncontrast o mer-cantilistconceptionsof colonialism,whichsimplysubordinate olonies to met-ropolitan nterests,Arango'sformulationof themarket,productivity, ndprop-erty rights establishes a community of interests between colonial propertyholders andthe Spanishstate-a terrainmore subjectto negotiationbetweeninterestedpartiesthanto metropolitan iat. The removalof political andeco-nomic obstacleswill unchain heself-interestof colonialpropertyholders.Con-sequently,the prosperityof both metropolisandcolony will increasethroughproductionandtrade.



16/26

18 DALE TOMICHArango's conceptionof the marketandsocial relations s morecomprehen-sive andthorough-going hanthatof his European ounterparts.nEurope, hedebates betweenmercantilism,agrarianism, ndphysiocracythat were forma-tive of politicaleconomy evolved withindualisticoppositionsbetween interi-or andexterior,superfluousandnecessary,naturaland artificial.In largemea-sure, they turnedaroundthe questionof whetherwheat and other grains, assourceof subsistenceof nationalpopulationsandsupportof armies,were strate-gic goods thatwere key to the self-sufficiencyandindependenceof the state,or whetherthey were the sourceof profitand destinedfor foreign commerce(Larrere1992:175-76). For example, in his celebratedInformesobre la leyagraria, Arango'sfriend andcontemporaryGasparMelchorde Jovellanosar-gues forfree trade or Spanishproduceexcept forgrain.He supports ree tradein grainwithinSpainbut contendsthatgrain exportsshouldbe prohibitedun-less therewereanexcess beyondtheneedsof internal onsumption Jovellanos1968:129-36). ForJovellanos,theprincipalobjectof a country'sproductionsits internalconsumption.He gives the metropolispriorityover the colonies.Colonies,he contends,areuseful as anoutletfor thesurplus sobrante)of met-

ropolitanproduction.This surplus s nothingmorethanwhatremainsafter n-ternalconsumption. n his view, to deprivethe metropolisof the produceofnationalindustryin order to provide it to the colonies would be like aidingpovertyoutside while allowing hungerto remainin the house ( Letayf 1968:187-88).In contrast,the characterof Cubanagriculturecompelled Arango to linkCubanprosperitynextricablyand mmediately othemarket.He views thepro-duce of Cubanagricultureas frutosde retorno, which by theirnatureweredestinedforexchangein internationalmarkets. nresponseto an official querythat he JuntaofAgricultureproposedbyArangoshouldalsoprotectcommerce,Arangoresponded: Toprotectagricultureromoutsideinfluences,andpartic-ularlyin a country n which all commerceconsistsof the exportof its crops,is... the same as protectingcommerce.If I did not speakat length aboutcom-merce,it was becauseI could do not more thanto sketchmy ideas. . .. thatforthe moment we should not makethe mistakeof makingagriculturedependenton commerceas we appoint he membersof the Junta.Thehandsdependuponthe body, and for the same reason the merchants n an agriculturalcountryshould not dictate terms, but ratherreceive them from those who with theirsweat nourishandsupportcommerce 1793a:168-69).Here,Arango conceptuallygoes beyondthe physiocrats'oppositionof nat-uraleconomyandcommerce(Larrere1992:212),whilepracticallyhe promotesthe interests of productive agricultural apital against those of monopolisticmerchants.In his view, Cubanagriculture s indissolublylinked to overseastrade.As frutos de retorno,orprodutosde extraccion,all of its crops are in-tended for export. Agriculturalproduction s necessarilyfully integrated ntothe market.WhereasJovellanos treatsconsumptionas an a priorideduction



17/26


fromtheproductandreferstothesurplus sobrante)as theremainder,Arango'suse of surplus(sobrante) suggests permanentlyexpandedCubanproductionunderwhich therequirements f Spanishconsumptionaresubsumed.Spain,inhis view, will lose nothingby encouraging ts colonies to sell theirproduce nforeignmarkets. t will alwayshaveenoughfor its domesticconsumption.TheproblemCuba faces is not that of subsistencebutthat of competition n inter-nationalmarkets Arango1793a:142-43).Underthe stimulusof themarket,Arangoconceivedof Cubaas anengineofimperialeconomic development.Free trade andthe developmentof colonialproduction,he argued,would benefit not only Cuba,but Spainas well. Thisin realityis not a favor.It profitsthe State,which withoutlosing anythingorsettinganythingaside,will finditself atthe endof a certainperiodof timewithanincomethat t didnot havepreviouslyand witha groupof vassals that s ca-pableof helping t (Arango1793a:140).Free tradewouldperfectthefactories,augmentthe Royal Treasury,and increase the populationof the island. Withit, Arango proclaimed,Spain would arrive at the fullness of its prosperity(1788:77). Thus,he urgedthe King to take advantageof this uniquemomentwhich could givean incrediblestimulus(fomento) to the nationalwealth,orwhat is the same thing, to the agricultureof Cuba (1793a:115n, my empha-sis).GOVERNAR LOS ESCLAVOS: SLAVERY AND LABORIntheDiscurso,Arango s chiefly concernedwithjustifyingtheslave tradeandthe use of slaves as the necessarymeans to valorize the propertyandinvest-mentsof Cubanhacendados. He devotes less attention ojustifying slaveryasan institution(1811:185) . In 1811, he emphasizedthe immenseprofit(utili-dad) that all branchesof ournationalindustryhave drawnfrom devotingthenegroes to the service of all of our ruralestates ... The magnificentproductsof thisservice and tsprodigious nfluencearetobe seen notonlyintheprogressof theisland,but nthatof theslave tradeandthenationalmarine. .. [W]ithoutnegroslaves, therewould not be colonies (1811:184-85).Arangopresumesa racialized abor force. He refers to Negroes rather hanto slaves andregardsthem as particularly uitedto agricultural asks (faenascampestres) n the hot climate of Cuba(1811:184).Thoughhe describesthemvariouslyas ignorantor barbarous,he regardstheirconditionas unfortunate,wretched,andsad.Inhis eyes, they arefellow humanswho, in theirdependentstate,aredeservingof protection.He argues hatnegroesareslaves who do nothave civil status(persona civil). For thatreason, they aremore deservingofgreatercompassionandgreaterprotectionby law andhumanity(see Amores1996:511-12). At the sametime, caution andvigilance were necessary,espe-cially when the plantersof Cuba had the example of the SaintDomingueup-risingbefore them(Arango1793a:167-68). Ina good slave system,Arango n-sists, it is necessarythat civil laws avoid the abusesas well as the dangersof



18/26

20 DALE TOMICH

slavery (1811:185). On these grounds,he constructsa justificationof Cubanslavery by contrasting t with the French slave system: The French ooked atthe slaves as beasts, andthe Spanishlooked at themas men. The principleofthose [French]mastersandeven their slave legislationhas always been exces-sive vigor,to inspire n theirslaves all thefearthattheycan,believingthatonlyin this manner s it possible for a single white to govern a hundrednegroes inthemiddle of theforestand n the midstof suchheavyandcontinuous asks....None of the resourcesthat the negrolacks in the Frenchcolony aremissing inourcolonies as muchbecause the laws give them to him as because the mas-ters are careful to observethem becauseof theirutility.The slaves of Havanafind themselvestodaywithall the assistanceandsatisfactions bienes)thatthehappiest[slaves]in theworldcan obtain,and ourcivil laws havebalancedper-fectly the two extremes,thatis, the abuses of the ownersand thedevelopmentof insubordination ndinsolvency of the slave (1791c:110-11).Arangohereplaces himself in a long tradition hat seeks to contrast he mildcharacterof Iberianslavery with the harsherpracticesof northernEuropeanpowers.Yetfor the purposesof this argument,t is perhapsmoreinteresting oexamine how conceptions of property,interest, slavery, and labor shapedArango'sprogramof economic development.As partof his project o increasethe productiveefficiency of Cubanplantations,Arango sought to lower thecosts of maintaining laves and obtain more workfromthem,but withoutin-creasing heirsuffering hroughmaltreatment roverwork.His goalwas to pro-mote an economical method of governing slaves (metodode gobernarlosecondmicamente).This understandingof slave managementcombined theChristianconceptionof the reciprocalobligationsof Master andSlave, whichprovideda framework or master-slaverelationsbeginningin sixteenth-centu-ry Brazil (see Benci 1977 [1701];Antonil 1969 [1711]:111-17, 131-53), withanotion of thetechnicallyefficientorganization f tasks.(Rafaelde BivarMar-quese has argued hatby the end of the eighteenthcenturythe frame of refer-ence forthe meaningof the term econrmico n planterdiscoursehadshiftedfromthedirectionof thehousehold to managementof a productiveenterprise.An economical masterwas one who would constantlyseek to increase hisproperty, reatinghis expenses as an investment for futurereturnsrather hanas an expenditure[Marquese1999:113-14].) Arango sought to obtain moreworkfrom the slaves by reorganizing he distributionof taskson each planta-tion in order o eliminatedisorderandconfusion in the labor of the slaves. Buthe intendednothingthatwould increase he afflictionof the most unfortunateportionof the entirehumanspecies (1793a:138, 154). In addition,he soughtto lower thecosts of supporting he slave laborforceby encouraging lave pro-vision groundsand local productionof food crops (1793a:138-39, 154-55).Perhapssurprisingly,Arango's conceptionof slave governance s combinedwith a conceptionof laborthat recalls thatof Adam Smith, who, of course, isgenerallyregardedas thefounderof modern iberalpolitical economyandpar-



19/26


adigmatic critic of slavery (for example, Williams 1944:107). Arango, likeSmith,conceives of labor as a materialprocess that is not understoodbeyondtheproductionof usefulgoods. In his view, this labor s compatiblewith thedi-vision of labor,technologicalinnovation,and ameliorationof agricultural ndmanufacturingechniques.Indeed,Arangoperceivestechnologicalinnovationas a materialprocesswhich eases the burdenof labor andincreasesthe outputof goods. Everyoneknows, he wrote, that conomyin thelaborof mencon-sists of substituting or themby machines or beasts ... (1793a:126). Smithtoo treats aboras a natural,materialprocessthatproducesuseful or desirablegoods, thenecessaries andconveniences of life. Likewise,he treatsdivisionof labor(understoodas the distributionof tasks amonglaborers)andmachin-eryas simplytechnicalmeansto improvethe productive owersof labor,andthe greaterpartof the skill, dexterity,and udgmentwithwhich it is any wheredirectedor applied. Theireffect is to facilitateandabridge abor,and enableone man to do the workof many (Smith 1976:1, 1, 7, 11,292, 297, 364). ForSmith,the purposeof theirapplication s the productionof a greaterphysicalquantityof goods with a given numberof workers: Thepersonwho employshis stock in maintaining abor,necessarilywishes to employ it in such a man-neras to produceas greata quantityof work as possible. He endeavors, here-fore, both to make among his workmen the most properdistributionof em-ployment,andto furnish hemwith thebest machinesthat he can either nventor afford o purchase. .. Theproductivepowersof the samenumberof labor-ers cannotbe increased,but in consequenceeitherof some addition and im-provement o thosemachinesand nstrumentswhichabridge abor;or of amoreproperdivision anddistributionof employment Smith 1976:1,292, 364).Smith is justly famous for his critique of slavery. Nonetheless, his well-known argumentsaboutthe inefficiency of slaveryflow not fromhis concep-tion of the social organizationof the laborprocess,but rather rom his under-standingof thecapacityof thewagerelation o excite the worker'sself-interest.Thus, Smitharguesthatwages paid to the free workerstimulatethe worker'sstrict rugalityandparsimoniousattention n managing hefunddestinedforreplacingor repairing he wearand tear uponthe workerrather hanhavingto dependupona negligentmaster. n contrast: Theworkof the slave is thedearestof any.A personwho can acquireno property, an have no other nter-est but to eat as much,and to labor as littleas possible.Whateverwork he doesbeyond what is sufficient to purchasehis own maintenance,can be squeezedout of him by violence only, andnot by any interestof his own (1976:1,90,411-12). At the sametime, however,Smith admitsthe progressof the FrenchWestIndiancolonies is superior hatof the Britishand has been entirelyow-ing to the good conductof the colonists. ... andthis superiorityhas been re-marked nnothingso muchas in thegood management f theirslaves (1776:11,99-101).Smith's accountof the sources of the prosperityof the FrenchWestIndian



20/26

22 DALE TOMICH

colonies discloses his idea of governance.Here, his emphasis on the instru-mentalizationof slave laborreveals theconceptualunderpinnings f liberalpo-litical economy.Managementorgovernance s a form of authorityappropriateto those who aredeemed incapableof subjectivity.Smithwrites: But,as theprofitand success of thecultivationwhich is carriedon by means of cattle,de-pend very muchupon the good managementof those cattle, so the profit andsuccess of that which is carried on by slaves, must depend equally upon thegood managementof those slaves;andin the good managementof theirslavestheFrenchplanters, think t is generallyallowed,aresuperior o theEnglish.Paradoxically,SmithattributesFrenchsuperiority n this regard o the author-itarianstate(withtheclearimplication hatEnglishinstitutionsareunsuitedtoslavery): Thegenius of theirgovernmentnaturally ntroducesa betterman-agementof theirnegroslaves. Theslave is bestprotected n a society in whichpropertyandrepresentative overnmentareless well-developed.The arbitraryinterventionof the state is the best guaranteeof the slave's well-being:The aw,so faras it givessomeprotectionotheslaveagainstheviolenceof hismas-ter, s likely obe better xecutedn acolonywhere hegovernments ingreatermea-surearbitrary,han n onewhere t is altogetherree.Ineverycountrywhere heun-fortunateaw of slavery s established,he magistrate, hen he protects he slave,intermeddlesnsomemeasuren themanagementf theprivate ropertyfthemaster;inafreecountry, here hemasters perhapsither memberfthecolonial ssembly,or anelector f suchamember,edarenotdo thisbutwith hegreatestaution ndcir-cumspection.Such protectionof the slave, Smithcontends,inducesgentle treatment.Suchtreatment, renders he slave not only morefaithful,but moreintelligent,andtherefore,upona doubleaccount,more useful. He approachesmoreto thecon-dition of the free servant,and may possess some degree of integrityand at-tachment o his master sinterest[my emphasis],virtueswhich belong to freeservants,but which can neverbelong to a slave who is treatedas slaves com-monly are in countrieswhere the masteris perfectlyfree andsecure (Smith1976:II,99-101).

If ArangoandAdam Smith share a similarconceptionof labor,the differ-ences between themcanalso be understoodwithina common intellectual ield.AlbertHirschmanhas eloquentlydemonstratedhe importanceof passionsand interests s organizingthemes of philosophicalandpolitical economicdiscussionduringthe seventeenthandeighteenthcenturies.Smith,in a certainsense, represents he culminationof this tradition Hirschman1977:1-12). Hegeneralizes heself-interestedndividualas liberalsubjectandreconciles twithsocial order.In his political economy wages, rent,andprofitformat once thesource and the mediationof individual self-interest.Economic interest is de-terminedby the social location of the individual within the functional differ-entiationbetween land, labor,and stock as factors of production.The relationamongthese formsof property egulatebothindividualandclass interestsand



21/26


providethe means of making hemcompatiblewith socialorderandthewealthof nations.Arango'sargument or the necessity of the subordination f the slave popu-lation develops within the same terms as does Smith's argument or the self-interest of the free laborer.If for Smith, wages, generalizedprivateproperty,and the marketallow the socialization and regulationof the self-interestedworker, orArango,racialslaveryallows no suchpossibility:

Toopen hewayfor aman ohope oranygood s to open hedooralso tohisforgot-tenanddangerouseflections bout eingdeprivedf thisgood freedom].t scertainlyto arouse nhim, f notoutrightnsubordination,hen ackof compliance.Weneednotmentionhe nconveniencend llsof suchattitudesnslavery,eeing hem epeatednalltimesand n allcountries.nthestupidityftheNegroand hesolitude fourestatesliesthemostnecessaryubordination,ndall themore o be feareds anythinghatmayloosen hisunique esource,hiscapital efender f theexistence f thewhiteswho ivewithsomanynegros Arango 811:182).

Arangoorganizedhis defense of the Cubanplantersas the defenseof the in-terestsof men of property.However,preciselybecause he remainedwithin theterms of liberalthought,slaves, for him, could have no such interest.Like allmen,theywerepossessedof naturaliberty;however, orthemthislibertycouldnotbe realized hroughproperty.Rather, heliberty(andproperty)of slaveshadto be suppressedn the interestsof Cubaneconomicprosperity.Excludedfromproperty, laves weredefinedby the absenceof interestandthus wereincapableof self-interested ction.(Arango avoredallowingslaves theuseof plotsof landto grow their own provisions and improvetheir materialwell-being [1793a:125.]. However,such provisiongroundsare not to be confused with the con-ceptionof privatepropertynliberal heory.) n thissense,slaves(and, herefore,slavery)remainedoutside the sphereof liberalpoliticaleconomy.Self-interest,property, ndexchangecould not mediateandreconcile theinterestsof mastersand slaves-instead, in the absence of liberalsubjectivity,dominationandpa-ternalism egulated he relationbetween them.Without hedisciplining orce ofproperty, he slave remaineda dependentsubjectwho hadto be bothsubjugat-ed andprotected.Theslave systemresteduponexclusion anddominationas themeansof controlover theenslaved.ForArango, gnoranceand barbarismusti-fied slavery,yet, in his conception,slaverycouldonly perpetuatehem.The proximitybetweenArangoand Adam Smithformedby conceptionsoffree trade,labor,and self-interestgive us groundsto questionthe boundariesand supposed antimonies between pro-slaverythought and liberal politicaleconomy.Theseboundariesaremuchmorepermeableandproblematic hantheunified fields of inclusion/exclusionpresupposedby the concept of ideology(base/superstructure) ould leadus to believe. Emphasison the oppositionbe-tweenmodemliberalismandarchaicpro-slavery houghtobscuresbothSmith'sdebts to thephysiocrats Tribe1978:108-9; DavidMcNally 1988:209-57) andArango's positionwithinEnlightenment hought.



22/26

24 DALE TOMICH

The pointhere is not to denythe differencesbetweenliberal andpro-slaveryideologies, but to locate the positionof each withina sharedconceptualfield.By linking self-interest,the distributionof forms of privateproperty(wages,profit,rent),and marketexchangeto providea systematicaccountof social or-ganization,Smithis able to form an internallyunifiedand consistentpoliticaleconomy.From hisperspective, here s a closure thatallowsforastrictly eco-nomic conceptionof social relationsandpermitsformationof the disciplineof political economy as a self-contained system of thought. Consequently,Smithappearsas the founderof modempoliticaleconomy at the same time asphysiocracy s consignedto the role of precursorandplacedoutsideof moder-nity.In contrast,Arango'sconceptionof the slave economy permitsno such uni-fied economicdiscourse.Beyondthemorelimitedpurposeof theDiscurso,hisdiscoursecan only be unsystematic.Inhis case, productiverelationsrestuponslaveryandracial domination or theirreproduction. uchdominationdoes notallow foreithera unifiedsystemof politicaleconomicthoughtortheformationof individual subjectivity mediated by private propertyrelations. Hence, itis notcompatiblewithLiberalismas ideology.Yet,such differencesexist with-in a common conceptualfield andhave a historicalaffinitywith one another.From such a perspective,the sourcesand internalcoherence of bothpro-slav-ery thoughtand liberalismappearmoreopen anddiverse. Differences betweenthem no longerappearas absolute.Rather, heymaybe understoodas opposedyet mutuallyformativetendencies that draw,at least in part,from the samesources. Such an approachcan lead to rethinking ruitfully analyticaland in-terpretativerameworks;t further eveals bothdisjunctures ndnew historicalunities. Itpointsto the needto distinguishbetweenpoliticaland economic lib-eralism as a finished,articulateddeology and thecomplex, discontinuousdis-cursive field from which it is constructed.In this context, it is useful to recallPaulGilroy's idea thatslaveryand raceformboundaryconceptsthatshape,orperhapseven define modern deologiesof progressandmodernization.They areconstitutedwithinthe historicalrela-tions of modernity,buttheirexclusionfrom considerationwithinit are the con-ditionsfor liberalideologies of progress.Recognitionof this exclusion allowsconsiderationof thecomplex andcontradictory haracter f modernity Gilroy1993). Here, liberalideology veils the modernityof slavery,while slaveryre-veals the complexityand contradictionwithin liberalism.CONCLUSIONIn his Discurso sobre la Agriculturade la Habanay Medios de Fomentarla,FranciscoArangoy Parrefiomobilizes the conceptualvocabularyof politicaleconomy andthe Enlightenment o articulatea projectfor the transformationof Cubaneconomic andsocial life; thisprojectrestsuponthe interdependenceof the slave trade, free trade in Cuban agriculturalproducts, scientific im-



23/26


provementof agriculture,and reformof slave management.Rather hanbeinganomalous,each of the elementspresentedby Arangoare interdependent ndmutuallyreinforcing:Eachpresupposesthe others andrequires hemin orderto achieve its full effect. Arango's argumentbrings togetherthe unrestrictedsupplyof slavelabor, reetrade,andagriculturalnnovation n order o promotea conceptionof well-being based on fertility,the circulationof commodities,science, andthecreationof abundance. trepresents hespecific formulationofslave relations n Cuba withinchangingconditionsof worldeconomy.Itthere-by calls attentionto the diversity and continualhistorical reconstitutionofslaveriesin theAmericas.This proposalrepresentsan attempt o use Cuba'sproductiveadvantages ocarve out a dominantposition for the island in the emergingNorth Americanand Europeanmarkets.It gives theoreticalexpressionto Cuba's shift to pro-ductiveagriculture ndfreetrade.Within hisframework,Arango dentifies themarketas the most effective instrument o supplyCubawith boththe laborandmaterials hatit requiresandwith outlets for its produce.Nonetheless, the in-terventionof the Spanishstateis necessaryto secure the competitiveaccess tomarketsnecessaryto overcome Cuba'srelativelyweak economicpositionandestablishArango's happyequilibrium etween slave importsandagricultur-alexports.However,freetrade n itself is insufficient o transformCuba'secon-omy.Its success dependsupontheunrestricteddevelopmentof slave labor, hereformof slave management,and the scientific transformation f agriculture.Accordingly,Arango's programand the subsequentCubandevelopmentin-spired by it representan originalresponseto the economic andpolitical con-junctureformedby the Haitian and AmericanRevolutions, industrialization,and the transformation f worldmarketsunderBritisheconomic andpoliticalhegemony.Fromthis perspective,Arangoappearsas anAtlanticintellectualwho elab-oratedan integralprogram or economic renewalthat,albeitauthoritarian, i-erarchical,andracist,was successful. His projectwas to inform Cubandevel-opment at least until the 1860s and clearly helped to shape the fluid andexpandingworldeconomy of the firsthalf of the nineteenthcentury.Between1801 and 1865 Cubaimportedover 600,000 African slaves as well as inden-tured aborers romChinaandYucatian. he Cuban ngeniodevelopedon an un-precedented calethrough ystematicandongoingtechnical ransformation. ythe 1820s Cubaemergedas the world's leading sugarproducerand its outputvirtuallydoubledevery ten years thereafter.The Cubansugarindustrydomi-nated the worldmarketand becamea key pivot in the remakingof theAmeri-can plantationperiphery.Yet,the very success of this project ncreasedCuba'sdependenceon sugarand slavery and exacerbated ensions and conflicts be-tween master and slave, between groupsin Cuba,and between Cubaand theSpain.InArango'sview, thepolicies delineated n the Discurso would benefitboth



24/26

26 DALE TOMICHCuba andSpain.Even as Cuba'seconomicdevelopmentdrewit into closerre-lation with the United States,both as an outlet for its produceand as a marketfor the latter'smanufactured oods andother mports,Cubaremaineda partofthe Spanish empire. However, such policies also implicitly redefined fromwithin the relation between Cuba and Spain and the natureof the empire.ThoughCubanplantersremained vassals of the king, they could not remaincolonial subjects who might be simply subordinated o the interests of theCrownandmetropolitan tate.Rather,by developingtheplanters'propertyandtherefore their independentinterest, these policies meant that, even thoughSpainandCubaremainedpartsof anencompassing mperialpoliticalunit,theplanters'relation o Spainhad to be negotiatedas a relationshipbetween sepa-rateinterestswithin the context of a marketeconomy.Arango'sproject ncreasedCuba'sdependenceon slaveryin the context ofthe HaitianRevolution,on the one hand,andBritishpressureon the interna-tional slavetrade,on theother.Under heseconditions, hemaintenance f slaverelationsrequired hepresenceof a repressive orce thatboth increasedprotec-tion costs and increasedregulationof master-slave elations.At the sametime,expandingandcompetitivecommoditymarketsput pressureon theproductiv-ity of slave labor.Ideologies of liberalism,progress,and self-interested ndi-vidualismaltered heideological spacein whichslaverycould bothbeproposedanddefended.Indeed,in Cuba,the growthof the sugar ndustry,with its brutallaborregime andharshsocial discipline, undermined he very Spanishpater-nalism thatArangodeployedtojustify slavery.Finally,the remarkable rowthof the sugar ndustryexacerbated he tensions betweensugarand othersectorsof the Cubaneconomy.Itcreated he unevenregionaland socialdevelopmentofCuba and provokedthe social discontinuities and antagonismsthat were tomanifestthemselves in theTen YearsWar.

REFERENCESAmores, Juan B. 1998. Cubay Espaiia, 1868-1898. Elfinal de un sueiio. Pamplona:EdicionesUniversidadeNavarra.- . 1996.Francisco eArango Parrefio: atransici6nacia a modernidadnCuba.Actas del XI CongresoInternacionaldelAsociaci6n de HistoriadoresLatino-americanistasEuropeos.Liverpool.II, 507-22.Antonil,AndrdJodo.[1711] 1968. Culturae opulenciado Brasilpor suas drogase mi-nas.Paris: HEAH.Arango Parrehio,rancisco e. 1788. nstrucci6nueseformoD. Francisco eArangocuando eentrego elospoderes elaHabana papeles el asunto.nObras.LaHa-bana:Direcci6n eCultura,952, 1:77-78.. 1789.Primer apel obre l comercio enegros. nObras.LaHabana: irec-ci6ndeCultura, 952,1:79-84.. 1791 .Representaci6nanifestandoasventajas e unaabsolutaibertadnlaintroducci6nenegros, solicitandoeamplie ocho apr6rrogaoncedida ordosaijos. nObras.LaHabana: irecci6n eCultura, 952, 1:97-102.. 791b. Oficioacompaiandoopiade la representaci6nobre a introducci6n



25/26


de negros,y corroborandolaon razonesmuy s61lidas.n Obras.La Habana:Direc-ci6n de Cultura,1952, 1:106-8.. 1791c. Representaci6nhecha a S. M. con motivode la sublevaci6nde esclavosen los dominiosfranceses de la isla de SantoDomingo. In Obras.La Habana:Direc-ci6n de Cultura,1952, I:109-13.. 1793a.Discurso sobrelaAgriculturade la Habanay Medios de Fomentarla. nObras.La Habana:Direcci6nde Cultura,1952, I:114-75.. 1793b. Respuestasde D. FranciscoArangoa los reparosque se hicierona su'Discursosobre a agricultura e la Habana.' n Obras.LaHabana:Direcci6nde Cul-tura, 1952, 1:175-203.. 1811.Representaci6nde la Ciudadde la Habanaa las Cortes.InObras.LaHa-bana:Direcci6nde Cultura,1952, 11:145-87.Arrighi,Giovanni. 1994. TheLong TwentiethCentury.London:Verso.Benci, Jorge.[1700] 1977. Economiacristddos senhoresno governodos escravos.SdoPaulo:Grijalbo.Benitez Rojo, Antonio. 1986. Power/Sugar/Literature: owarda Reinterpretation fCubanness.CubanStudies 16:9-31.BitarLetayf,Marcel. 1968. Economistasespaiioles del siglo XVIII.Sus ideas sobre lalibertaddel comerciocon Indias. Madrid:EdicionesCulturaHispanica.Cay-Galbo, Enrique.1938. Arango y Parrefio.Ensayo de interpretaci6nde la realidadeconomicade Cuba.Cuadernosde Historia Habanera 15:81-112.Chiaramonte,Jose Carlos. 1982. La critica ilustradade la realidad.Economiay so-ciedad en el pensamientoargentinoe iberamericanodel siglo XVIII.BuenosAires:CentroEditorde AmericaLatina.

-- . n.d. Pensamientode la Ilustracidn.Economiay sociedad iberoamericanasenel siglo XVIII.Caracas:BibliotecaAyacucho.Foucault,Michel. 1971. L'ordredu discours.Paris:Gallimard.. 1972. TheArcheology of Knowledgeand the Discourse on Language. NewYork:PantheonBooks.Franco,MariaSylvia de Carvalho.1993. All the Worldwas America. JohnLocke,Liberalismoe propriedade omo conceito antropol6gico.Revista USP 17:30-53.Friedlaender,Heinrich. 1978.Historia economicade Cuba.LaHabana:Editorialde lasCiencias Sociales.Genovese, Eugene D. 1967. The Political Economy of Slavery. New York:VintageBooks.Gilroy,Paul. 1993. TheBlackAtlantic.ModernityandIts Double Consciousness.Lon-don:Verso.Gonzailez-RipollNavarro,Maria Dolores. 1999. Cuba, La Isla de los Ensayos. Cul-turay Sociedad (1790-1815). Madrid:Consejo Superiorde InvestigacionesCien-tificas.Hirschman,Albert 0. 1977. The Passions and the Interests.Political Arguments orCapitalismbeforeIts Triumph.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.Jovellanos, GasparMelchor de. 1968. Informesobre la ley agraria. Barcelona:Edi-ciones de Materiales.Larr're,Catherine. 1992. L'inventionde l'dconomieaux XVIIIesiecle. Paris:PressesUniversitairesde France.Lewis, GordonK. 1983. Main Currents n CaribbeanThought:The Historical Evolu-

tion of CaribbeanSociety in Its Ideological Aspects.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUni-versityPress.Lluch,ErnestandLluisArgemi.1985.Agronomayfisiocracia enEspafia(1750-1820).Valencia:Instituci6nAlfonso el Magninimo.



26/26

28 DALE TOMICH

Maestri,Raul. 1937.Arangoy Parreiio:El Estadistasin Estado. La Habana:Publica-ciones de la Secretariade Educaci6n.Direcci6nde Cultura.Marquese,Rafael de Bivar.1999.AdminstraCgo&Escraviddo. defas sobrea GestdodeAgriculturaEscravistaBrasileira.Sio Paulo: HUCITEC.Marrero,Levi. 1984. Cuba:Econ6miay Sociedad,X. Madrid:EditorialPlayor.McNally,David. 1988. Political Economyand theRise of Capitalism:A Reinterpreta-tion.Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress.MorenoFraginals,Manuel. 1978. El ingenio. Complejoecon6mico social cubano delazacar, 3 vols. La Habana:Editorialde CienciasSociales.

. 1976. TheSugar Mill. The Socioeconomic Complexof Sugar in Cuba.NewYork:MonthlyReview Press.Murray,David R. 1980. Odious Commerce:Britain, Spain and the Abolition of theCubanSlave Trade.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.PonteDominguez,FranciscoJ. 1937.ArangoParreifo:EstadistaColonial Cubano.LaHabana: mp.Molinay Cia.Pdrotin,Anne. 1974. Le projetcubaindes grandsplanteursde la Havane:Jalonspourune lecturede FranciscoArango y Parrefio 1769-1839). In Milanges de la casa deVelazquez,X. Paris:EditionE. de Boccard.Smith,Adam. 1976. An Inquiry nto the Nature and Causes of the Wealthof Nations.Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.Tomich,Dale. 1988. The SecondSlavery :BondedLaborand the Transformation fthe Nineteenth-CenturyWorld Economy. In Rethinkingthe Nineteenth Century:Movementsand Contradictions,FranciscoO. Ramirez,ed. Westport,Conn.:Green-wood Press, 103-17.Travieso,Julio. 1970.El pensamientoecon6micodeArangoy Parrefio.Economiay De-sarollo, 10-11 (Oct.-Dec.):130-50.Tribe,Keith. 1978. Land, Labour and EconomicDiscourse. London:Routledge andKeganPaul.Venturi,Franco.1972. Italyand the Enlightenment:Studiesin a CosmopolitanCentu-ry.New York:ColumbiaUniversityPress.Williams,Eric. 1944. Capitalismand Slavery. ChapelHill:Universityof North Caroli-na Press.

Documents

Dale Tomich - The Wealth of Empire