Big Think and the nature of capitalism

Jack Goody was one of those rare thinkers that tried to think big. Not common in economics anymore, and less clear in other social sciences, as somewhat narrowly defined techniques take over the breadth of historical understanding. I've only read before his The Theft of History, somewhat iconoclastic book in which he debunks the idea that individualism, democracy and freedom were somehow invented by modern Western society.

I started reading now his Metals, Culture and Capitalism. There are already some interesting things associated to his emphasis on iron, rather than precious metals, in the trade interaction between the West and the Rest. Note that this suggests, probably against the grain of Goody's concern, that the metallurgic advantages of the West, played an early role in the so-called Rise of the West.

But what caught my eye is the following quote:

“In this piece I have covered a long period of time and will undoubtedly have got some things wrong, although I hope my references will usually bear me out. On few, perhaps none, of the subjects am I expert, but the expert does not always see the wood for the trees. One reason for my taking a long time-span is that historians have taken a much too restricted view of their subject and this has prevented them from going back to the commonalities which join us both to the Near and the Far East of what is essentially one continent. For this reason I would question the history cultivated in part of that region, in Europe since the eighteenth, but especially the nineteenth and twentieth centuries when the west led the way in many things. They emphasised the development of ‘capitalism’ as a new mode of production in Europe (an idea not limited to Marxism) and have therefore overlooked the commonalities of which I have spoken.”

First of all, there is the admission that to think big it requires to deal in areas that one is not a specialist, and that leads to mistakes. But most of the mistakes are not central to the argument in my view (see for example, the discussion with Brad DeLong related to David Graeber's book on debt; see comments section).

The second and more relevant point is that he seems, as much as Gunder Frank in ReOrient, to suggest that the notion of mode of production is problematic, and that the very idea of capitalism should be questioned. While I find revisionism with regards the timing and the causes of the Rise of the West (including the work of Gunder Frank, but even more Pomeranz and Bin Wong) relevant to understand the limits of conventional views on the subject, both that it happened much recent than normally thought and that demand forces might have played a role, I find the dismissal of the notion of capitalism problematic (I discussed some of that here). In extremely simplified way, one could argue that it's capitalism that is behind the Rise of the West.

Bowles on Capitalism and Institutions

As I noted before I've been teaching a Political Economy course, which I assumed right before classes began, and, I decided to keep the textbook, since it was already ordered. The book is written by Bowles, Edwards, and in the last edition, Roosevelt and is titled Understanding Capitalism. I discussed before the meaning of capitalism here (see also this on the use of the term capitalism as a proxy for free market policies).

Here just a brief comment on the use of the idea of modes of production (economic systems in the textbook). The book discusses the economic system in the US from colonial times to the present and suggests that it was not capitalist early on (it even says that no economy ever started as capitalists).While it is true that settlement colonies are not like exploitation colonies, I find this proposition hard to defend.

Caio Prado Jr. one of the early Marxist analysts of Brazilian economic development noticed that Brazilian economic development was in effect from inception a footnote of the development of mercantile capitalism in Western Europe, and even though slavery predominated early on in the sugar plantations from the 16th century onwards, the system should not be seen as pre-capitalist, as some other Marxist authors suggested.

Mutatis mutandis, the US was constituted to export tobacco to the old continent (colonization started in Virginia, not with the Puritans in Massachusetts, in spite of myths of origin). But more importantly even in the settlement colonies, were Bowles suggests that a system of independent production of commodities dominated, the famous triangular trade is what allowed the region to subsist. Again this suggests that the system was heavily dependent on the institutions of mercantile capitalism.

Not completely clear to me, but certain passages in Bowles book seem to suggest that he also does not consider slavery as part of capitalism. This might be in line with the kind of argument put forward by authors like Eugene Genovese, which I discussed here before. Again, I tend to think that this is a misconception. In other words, the US economy (not the pre-Columbian societies that it displaced) was, as a much as the Brazilian economy, a footnote on the history of the development of Western European Capitalism, and very much part of that mode of production always.

The book also seems to accept to a great degree the Coase/North New Institutionalist arguments about the role of property rights. This seems in line with the behavioral preoccupations of the book, and with Bowles notion that outcomes should be derived from microeconomic behavior, emphasizing the role of incentives.

PS: There are other issues with the book that I find problematic, and perhaps will discuss in other posts, in particular the notion that employment is determined in the labor market and the use of an efficiency wage model as a political economy approach to labor issues. I quite never understood why this Marxist literature on efficiency wages does not cite Solow (they do cite Leibenstein) or other New Keynesian authors that basically present the same theory. Also the discussion of profits seems to suggest that accumulation is driven by supply side factors, rather than demand, although that should not be a surprise. The last one is not surprising though.

Technological determinism and economic growth

Technological determinism is widespread. The Solow model basically suggests that it is technological progress, measured incorrectly as Total Factor Productivity (TFP), that drives growth. The same is true of Schumpeterian models with a demiurgic role for the innovating entrepreneur.

But technological determinism is not just typical of economics, historians too tend to accept that technology drives history. Leo Marx and Merritt Roe Smith tell us in the intro to their edited book titled Does Technology Drive History? that:

The collective memory of Western culture is well stocked with lore on this theme. The role of the mechanic arts as the initiating agent of change pervades the received popular version of modern history. It is embodied in a series of exemplary episodes, or mini-fables, with a simple yet highly plausible before-and-after narrative structure. Before the fifteenth century, for example, Europeans are said to have known little or nothing about the western hemisphere; after the compass and other navigational instruments became available, however, Columbus and his fellow explorers were able to cross the Atlantic, and the colonization of the New World quickly followed. Newly invented navigational equipment is thus made to seem a necessary precondition, or "cause," of as if it had made possible Europe's colonization of much of the world. 

Similarly, the printing press is depicted as a virtual cause of the Reformation. Before it was invented, few people other than the clergy owned copies of the Bible; after Gutenberg, however, many individual communicants were able to gain direct, personal access to the word of God, on which the Reformation thrived. As a final example, take the story, favored by writers of American history textbooks, about the alleged link between the cotton gin and the Civil War. In the late eighteenth century, slavery was becoming unprofitable in the American states; but after Eli Whitney's clever invention, the use of African slaves to harvest cotton became lucrative, the reinvigorated slavery system expanded, and the eventual result was a bloody civil war.

And when it comes to economics technological determinism is not only a trait of the mainstream of the profession. The editors argue that Heilbroner (who was very open, but more conventional in is economics than people think) is the closest in their book's collected essays to accept technological determinism. Heilbroner's classic paper "Do Machines Make History?" starts with Marx's (Karl not Leo) epigraph (from The Poverty of Philosophy) according to which: "the hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill, society with the industrial capitalist." Mind you, I think that regarding Marx, the quote might be misleading. Marx clearly thought that there was a technological component to the mode of production, but social relations of production mattered too.

What is NOT discussed in most analyses of the technological determinism by conventional and more than a few heterodox authors is the role of demand in creating the conditions for technological change. In that case, technological change is not the cause of growth, but the result. As in Adam Smith's story, it is the extent of the market (demand) that limits the division of labor (productivity). In modern parlance the idea is known as the Kaldor-Verdoorn Law.*

Obviously there is a certain serendipity in the process of technological innovation, and, hence, it is not uniquely determined by the pressures of a growing market. The point is more that there is no reason for an invention to be pursued systematically if it does not somehow provide for an existing and pressing need. Think of steam engines (the ones that give you the industrial capitalist), which were known for millennia, way before Newcomen and Watt, but had no relevant productive use until they were employed for pumping water out of mines. Only then the potential of the machine was comprehended, and the real work of incremental improvements that made it really useful started.

The question is then one of causality (as it often is between heterodox and mainstream views). Do innovations cause growth or are caused by growth (even if there is some two-way causality the question is which one predominates)? Were the high wages in England that forced capitalists to economize on labor (Principle of Substitution) and led to the Industrial Revolution, as Robert Allen suggests, or did the high wage economy, and the extended domestic markets (let alone the external markets) that provided the stimulus for technological change? I still believe that the weight of the historical evidence suggests that demand rules the roost.

The notion that technology is demand driven is also the only alternative, even though that is not understood very well by historians (economic or otherwise) to technological determinism. In this case, the reasons behind innovations are associated to the more complex social forces that determine the expansion of demand. They involve issues related to income distribution (high or low wages), or the social patterns that determine tastes and consumption (the reasons why the British consumed Indian calicos and porcelain pottery), the access to foreign markets, and the geopolitical forces that explain why some won and others lost in the pursue of those markets, to name a few. Note that power and politics are central to technological innovation, since they involve issues like income distribution and global access to markets. How can you understand the US National Innovation System (NIS)** without the Military-Industrial Complex and its role in providing access to global markets?

Sure enough a demand driven story has space for the sort of external supply-side effects that allow technology and innovations to thrive. So the expansion of demand in a society like England that was going through a Scientific Revolution would have more chances to lead to technological innovation (there is a gap between science and technology, of course) and  provide certain advantages over their competitors for global hegemony, to say the least. In other words, a demand driven story does not imply that supply side factors are irrelevant, they are simply not the prime movers.

* Neo-Schumepterians often refer to this view as the demand-pull hypothesis, due to Jacob Schmookler's Invention and Economic Growth.

** Another Neo-Schumpeterian beloved concept.

Was Marx right? Nice of you to ask, but...

The New York Times asked five economists whether Marx's economics was right, even if his politics was all wrong. By the way, the latter would be unquestionably true as a result of the collapse of the Soviet bloc. I am no Marx scholar, but I'll try to give my two cents on this debate. At any rate, it seems I read more of Marx's works than most of the commentators in the Times.

It is a bit disingenuous to suggest that Marxist economics, or classical political economy for that matter, since Marx was building on the work of the surplus approach authors, stands or falls with the Soviet Union [for a discussion of the causes of the Soviet collapse go here]. In fact, Marx has very little to say about communism, and many of the 10 policy proposals in the Communist Manifesto are now well-established consensual views in civilized societies, like the idea of a "heavy progressive or graduated income tax" ... or the provision of "free education for all children in public schools" and the "abolition of children’s factory labor."

Even if some of Marx's propositions are less well viewed in today's political climate, like the "abolition of private property," or the expansion of the "factories and instruments of production owned by the State," or the "centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank," these were instruments used to some degree by almost all successful experiences of industrialization in the world. One might as well suggest that the accomplishments of the Welfare State, in Western Europe and in the US (yes, even here), and some of the successful experiences in the developing world, are associated to Marx ideas. In fact, without the unity that he recommended to the working men of all countries, none of the advantages of the Welfare State would have taken place. The success of Sweden, so to speak, is as much a measure of the success of Marx's political ideas as the failures of the Soviet Union would be of his intellectual failure.

But, be that as it may, it is the actual economic thinking of Marx, about the functioning of capitalism, a mode of production, that he was the first to define and to try to explain its origins from a previous mode of production (feudalism), that matters in order to understand whether his contributions are relevant or not. The comments by the two academic economists in the New York Times, Brad DeLong and Tyler Cowen, are poor at best. Their views reveal, no surprise here, that their contact with Marx's works is minimal, if any, and that what they do know is some form of pop Marxism, filled with naïve simplifications of what Marx actually said.

Brad suggests that Marx was a second rate theorist. Why? In his words: "Marx's fixation on the labor theory of value made his technical economic analyses of little worth." I've already dealt significantly with the question of the labor theory of value (LTV) here, but it's worth remembering that while Sraffa provided a coherent solution for the labor theory of value's problems, in which long term normal prices can be determined as proportional to the labor commanded by the standard commodity (for the latter go here), the neoclassical problems to show that prices in the long term are determined by supply and demand, forced them to abandon the traditional method of economics, and embrace the intertemporal General Equilibrium model, in which all prices are short run ones, and there is no tendency to a uniform rate of profit. In other words, the LTV (or at least a version of it) theoretically stands on firmer ground than the neoclassical supply and demand theory. That is one of the results of the capital debates.

Also, note just for the sake of the argument, that while Brad dismisses Marx as a second rate theorist, he embraces Adam Smith (e.g. he says: "Adam Smith is the founder of economics because he has a great and extraordinary insight: that the competitive market system is a remarkably powerful social calculating and organizing mechanism"). And yet Adam Smith did use the labor theory of value, which should make his analysis of little worth, one would imagine. Mind you, for Smith, as much as for Marx, the competitive market system led prices to their long run equilibrium determined by the labor theory of value (labor commanded in Smith, incorporated in Marx). One is forced to assume that the reasons for dismissing Marx are not related to the LTV, and are political, or are based in a misunderstanding of the LTV, which would include the work of Smith (my history of thought students in Utah had a t-shirt that read: "I've read Smith and understood it.")

Brad then moves on to discuss Marx's predictions, which he suggest are somehow connected to Marx's confusion between real and nominal values. It is clear that Marx's immiseration hypothesis, the notion that the conditions of workers worsen as capital accumulation proceeds, is not based on some simplistic confusion between real measures of well being and nominal remuneration. For Marx the determination of the real wage, as it was for all the classical authors (Smith and Ricardo included) was exogenous, and at the subsistence level, but that did not mean that wages were determined physiologically, but by historical and institutional standards instead. In other words, the subsistence level would change in time and space. Why did Marx believe that the labor class would be worse off with the development of capitalism? Basically because he thought that the reserve army of unemployed would increase reducing the bargaining power of workers.

In his words:

"The greater the social wealth, the functioning capital, the extent and energy of its growth, and, therefore, also the absolute mass of the proletariat and the productiveness of its labour, the greater is the industrial reserve army. The same causes which develop the expansive power of capital, develop also the labour power at its disposal. The relative mass of the industrial reserve army increases therefore with the potential energy of wealth. But the greater this reserve army in proportion to the active labour army, the greater is the mass of a consolidated surplus population, whose misery is in inverse ratio to its torment of labour. The more extensive, finally, the lazarus layers of the working class, and the industrial reserve army, the greater is official pauperism. This is the absolute general law of capitalist accumulation. Like all other laws it is modified in its working by many circumstances, the analysis of which does not concern us here."

It is worth noticing that Marx's Laws, for all the criticism about their determinism, allow for countervailing forces, and suggest tendencies, rather than mechanical relations. Marx suggested in the same chapter (linked above) that:

"within the capitalist system all methods for raising the social productiveness of labour are brought about at the cost of the individual labourer; all means for the development of production transform themselves into means of domination over, and exploitation of, the producers; they mutilate the labourer into a fragment of a man, degrade him to the level of an appendage of a machine, destroy every remnant of charm in his work and turn it into a hated toil; they estrange from him the intellectual potentialities of the labour process in the same proportion as science is incorporated in it as an independent power; they distort the conditions under which he works, subject him during the labour process to a despotism the more hateful for its meanness; they transform his life-time into working-time, and drag his wife and child beneath the wheels of the Juggernaut of capital. But all methods for the production of surplus value are at the same time methods of accumulation; and every extension of accumulation becomes again a means for the development of those methods. It follows therefore that in proportion as capital accumulates, the lot of the labourer, be his payment high or low, must grow worse."

It is not just the payment, which could be high or low, but the alienation, and exploitation that made the labor force worse off. It is also far from clear that Marx is suggesting absolute immiseration rather than relative in his writings. Brad, it seems, thinks that Marx somehow thought that workers would be in absolute terms worse off with the development of capitalism. He suggests that that extreme pessimism might not be guaranteed. Another reading would be that Marx thought that workers would be relatively worse off, and that the recurrent crisis of the system (realization crisis, financial crisis, of which Marx is among the first to discuss in a systematic way), would undermine the social basis of the system.

Tyler Cowen, the other academic economist in the NYTimes bunch, has no understanding of Marx and of the current problems of capitalism. For him the quesion is whether: "does Marx provide a very good guide to understanding all of those problems?" And his answer: "mostly not. Neoclassical microeconomics explains why some of our services are low quality and high cost, namely too much third party payment through insurance companies, too much regulation of the wrong kinds, and the difficulties consumers face in judging quality." In other words, for him our problems are caused by a collapse of supply, with high prices (and low quality) associated to too much regulation, or as he suggests, imperfect institutions. The notion that the instability of capitalism, or for that matter, the normal functioning of market economies is well explained by the neoclassical supply and demand story is hard to defend. There are too many problems with this kind of view. The lack of understanding of the limitations of the neoclassical paradigm by mainstream authors is probably one the worst problems of the profession at this point. And just to show the degree of confusion, he claims that Marx understood Public Choice theory (what passes for political economy at George Mason University)!

Michael Strain, who has been mostly an economist in government bureaucracies, including the Fed, suggests that: "Marx believed that the free enterprise system required the exploitation of workers," and for him "it is hard to see why anyone would believe that today." Sure poverty in the world has declined, depending on the measure you use (he uses the World Bank's one dollar a day). But the lack of understanding about the extension of capitalist exploitation associated with globalization, and the increase in inequality in many of the countries in which economic growth has accelerated in the last three decades seems misguided at best.

The last two commentators are more favorable to the Old Moor. Yves Smith, of the great blog Naked Capitalism, suggests an old theme among Marxists scholars. Even though Marx was aware of the destructive elements of financial crisis, he did not think that finance would be the main cause of the collapse of the system. Echoes of Rudolf Hilferding can be distinguished in her piece. Doug Henwood, a journalist with his Left Business Observer, is the only openly Marxist one to appear in the Times. He basically argues in favor of the old profit squeeze view of the demise of the Golden Age, and the beginning of the Conservative Era. And he does say, correctly, that we cannot understand our current problems without "some sort of Marx-inspired analysis."

Beyond the simplistic notions of whether Marx was a right about the Soviet Union [e.g. Strain tells us that Marx was: "devastatingly wrong ... about the most important questions he tried to tackle (see also: Union, Soviet)"; yep, Marx did not foresee the rise and fall of the Soviet Union, what a moron!], or about the collapse of capitalism, what is missed in this discussion is that Marx's method, which harks back to the old surplus approach, in which distribution is exogenous, and determined by social and institutional factors, and is open to Keynes effective demand to complement the theory of output and accumulation, and which can include all sorts of financial instability notions, provides a far more fertile ground to rebuild the edifice of economics than the illogical neoclassical paradigm. But even if some of the contributions were not great, we should still thank the New York Times for asking.

Capitalism, Socialism and all that

Allan Meltzer has written a book in defense of Capitalism (Why Capitalism?). The funny thing is that nowhere he tries to define capitalism, which he seems to equate with market economies and other inane concepts. If there is a definition in his book is that capitalism is a system based on "a foundation of a rule of law, which protects individual rights to property, and, in the first instance, aligns rewards to values produced."* I'll get to some of the issues with the book on another post [I discussed the meaning of capitalism before here].

Note that the term capitalism only became more widely used in the 1930s, when the system was hit by its most severe crisis in history, and when alternative systems became more attractive. The figure below show the use of the various terms, not just modes of production, like Capitalism (and Communism, which does have a connection to an ancient mode of production) but also political ideologies (these two are often confused in political discussions).

Note that Socialism has declined considerably since the late 1970s, and more so after the collapse of the Soviet bloc. Social Democracy (the Northern European term) was never as popular as Socialism (the Southern European one).

Note also that the term capitalism as a proxy of market economy, or laissez faire, more of an ideology related to economic policy than a proper description of a mode of production was always more popular than the alternatives expressions. If you use alternatives to capitalism you can see that none has been particularly catchy.

While it is difficult to foresee a crisis of a mode of production, and certainly I would agree that the 2007-9 crisis, as bad as it is, does not mark the beginning of the end of Capitalism, I think it is far from clear that alternatives to the free market ideology (Meltzer's capitalism) are not possible. But a proper discussion would require that Meltzer understood the difference between the ideology of free markets, and the existence of modes of production.

I could go on the problems of this confusion, but here is a simple reason why Marx should be still in the curricula of economics. And Marx should be required reading even for those that disagree with him [as much as neoclassical manuals are read by heterodox people]. The quality of the historical understanding of the development of Capitalism, even by economists with reasonably well researched economic history books [I'm referring to Meltzer's history of the Fed, here and here, which I think is misguided, but well researched and relevant] is appalling. Meltzer should avoid writing about why capitalism is good until he learns what Capitalism is.

* If this was true you should have some sort of relation between productivity and remuneration, which is hardly the case.

What makes capitalism capitalism?

So I had a debate (the sort of debate you can have with 140 characters) in Twitter a few days ago with Unlearning Economics and Jonathan Finegold, among others (links are to blogs not to the twitt feeds). The main question was the definition of capitalism. It is a peculiar feature of modern economics that very few mainstream authors would actually discuss the issue directly, even if there has been a revival of some related issues associated to the relevance of institutions (vis-à-vis geography and culture) in the rise of the West. Robert Heilbronner used to say that the best kept secret in economics is that it was is about the study of capitalism.

I'm not going to get too much into the topic here, but it is worth a brief summary. As discussed before (here) in the blog, the surplus approach suggests that economics is the study of the material reproduction of societies. The existence of a surplus allows for specialization and progress, and the ways in which the surplus is produced and distributed is central for the understanding of reproduction. Broadly speaking, what Marx referred to as a mode of production is comprised of two elements, the material conditions of production or the forces of production, which include the means of production that incorporate a certain technology, and the social relations of production, which include the organization of production and the customs, laws and rules that guarantee the property of the means of production.

For Marx the manifestation of the capitalistic character of the manufacturing process is that the workers do not own the means of production and must sell their labor power. The reason being that an essential condition for capitalists to be able to buy labor power is that workers do not own means of production and are forced to sell in the market their labor force (see Capital, Volume I, Part II, chapter 6). The essence of the capitalist system is that workers sell their labor force, and are in this particular way exploited. That's the specific way in which capitalists obtain a surplus beyond what is necessary for social reproduction.

On the notion of the mode of production Marx perceptively tells us (Vol. I, Book I, Part I, ch. 1) that:

"The mode of production in which the product takes the form of a commodity, or is produced directly for exchange, is the most general and most embryonic form of bourgeois production. It therefore makes its appearance at an early date in history, though not in the same predominating and characteristic manner as now-a-days. 

Even Adam Smith and Ricardo, the best representatives of the school, ... treat this mode of production as one eternally fixed by Nature for every state of society ..."

That's exactly what Max Weber (and many modern authors too, by the way) does. He often refers to capitalism when discussing the middle ages in Western Europe, or ancient China, or the Roman Empire (see for example his General Economic History). This naturalization of capitalism is also typical of mainstream authors, that tend to confuse the existence of markets, or the profit motive, with capitalism.

Production for exchange in the market existed for sure before modern times, and so did exploitation. But the difference with previous modes of production is not simply the more developed material conditions of production associated with the factory system and machinery. It is the specific social arrangement that allows capitalists to control the means of production and extract a surplus from workers that must sell labor power in the market, and are liable of being exploited (more or less according to their bargaining power) that sets capitalism apart. So it is the way in which labor is exploited, one in which workers sell labor power in the market, that makes capitalism capitalism, so to speak [this has interesting implications in the Dobb and Sweezy debates on the transition from feudalism to capitalism, for example, that I'll leave for another post].

Note that while this definition of capitalism is clearly Marxist it builds up on the surplus approach, and is one of (not the only one either) the main contributions of Marx to the surplus tradition (he was critical of the bourgeois elements of classical economics, but built on the analytical structure of the school). In fact, Turgot and Smith both describe the evolution of societies in terms of stages related to the mode of production. It is the economic character of production that governs other aspects of social relations. The four stages were hunting, pasturage, agriculture and commerce. Bill McColloch suggests (see here) quite convincingly that Marx builds on the work of Steaurt.

Also, note that the notion that the profit motive is the differentia specifica of capitalism is tied to the typical methodological individualistic stance of the mainstream. It is hard to say, however, that individuals (merchants, for example) in previous modes of production (say in the ancient mode of production, which was based on slavery) had no desire for profits. If they did, however, what's different about capitalism? That's also why all the alternative theories of history (to the surplus approach) tend to fetichize the role of the entrepreneur (see Landes's last book for the epitome of that approach, which was also displayed in the History Channel's The Men Who Built America). It's the return of Carlyle's hero-worship and the Great Men theory of history.

Eugene Genovese and modes of production

Eugene Genovese has passed away. He was a historian of American slavery, and his views were not particularly popular or discussed in economics courses, as far as I know. Mainstream, quantitative historians suggested that his view that slavery in the South was not profitable was incorrect (in particular Engerman and Fogel, the latter a Bank of Sweden prize, also known as the Nobel, winner). The other reason, I imagine, that made his work particularly difficult for mainstream authors was his use of Marxist categories, including one that I still find essential for historical analysis, namely: the notion of mode of production.

Genevose (I read only his The Political Economy of Slavery and not the classic Roll, Jordan, Roll, often praised as his best work) argued that slavery was an economic drag to the Master class, and that the system remained a pre-capitalist formation, with the profit motive having a secondary role in the process of social reproduction. The idea was that, even if the South was connected by trade (cotton mostly) with the capitalist production in England (and New England too), the commercial relations where not central for the relations of production in the plantation system [I find his argument very unconvincing, by the way].

In other words, very much like Dobb, in the Transition debate with Sweezy, Genovese argued that the trade link was not central and could not define the South as part of the capitalist mode of production. In this sense, Southern slavery was for him a distinctive mode of production, one that was seen increasingly from a positive angle by Genovese, as he became more conservative and remained, interestingly, critical of the capitalist mode of production (which in a sense makes him more in tune with old conservatives that also repudiated the mercantilization of social relations).

Note that Genovese, like Engerman and Fogel in this case, thought that the peculiar institution was quite more benign that it is usually thought. In this sense, he reminds me of the quintessential Brazilian analysis of slavery in The Masters and the Slaves, by Gilberto Freyre, who also, even if for different theoretical reasons, saw Brazilian (not Southern, even if he saw similarities) slavery as benign and helped create the myth of Brazil as a racial democracy.

PS: On the slavery debates Nate Cline suggests this paper by Wallerstein (subscription required).