Secret Key protection (was Re: PKI creed)

[John R T Brazier]

Owen Lewis disparagingly said:

---------Begin Quote-----------


Sigh.....   Its no parallel at all. The trade in slaves bankrolled extrem=
ely
little (e.g. What did those Africans who sold their compatriots into
slavery, bankroll with their vast income?). Slavery or something
approximating to it fuelled every empire, from the Babylonian to the Russ=
ian
Soviet, because it is the most efficient means of producing a very cheap =
and
self sustaining labour force. To this can be added that it is the resourc=
e
of slave labour, indentured labour, penal labour and, to a lesser extent,
conscripted labour, that enabled natural resources to be exploited under
unavoidable conditions that occasioned 100% replacement of  the labour fo=
rce
every few years. It was such expendable labour upon which every civilisat=
ion
to date has been built. It is possible (but not certain) that this centur=
y
will be the first in which the need for expendable labour will finally
disappear.

Even Marx understood much of this. Where have you been?

----------End Quote------------

1) What an amazingly Eurocentric view. Empires were formed, farming was
altered, warfare significantly ramped up, even the currency changed in
Africa due to the slave trade. Africa does have a history that isn't
dependant on the West. Perhaps the point is that the Africans did not
develop a European civilization because they didn't want to. To quote Hug=
h
Thomas (The Slave Trade): 'The reluctance of Africans to Europeanise
themselves is often presented as a weakness. But it is more likely to be
explained by some innate strength of the African personality which, howev=
er
close the political or commercial relation with the foreigner, remains
impervious to external influence.'

2) In addition, of course, I wasn't actually referring to Africa, but to =
the
bankrolling of the British Empire. Britain moved approximately 2.6M slave=
s
(second only to Portugal); at the height of the trade a slave went for ab=
out
ten times in the Americas than in Africa (although figures vary wildly).
Profits were frequently 150 to 200%, total income to Britain was huge.
Consider: Liverpool, based on the triangular trade, was the largest port =
in
Britain by 1800; soon after it was the second greatest city in the World
after London. I have seen an estimate (unfortunately I can't put my hands=
 on
it) that through the later  17th and first half of the18th centuries the
average slaveship captain/owner who made it to retirement typically went
home with =A3500,000: a truly astronomical sum in those days.

3) My point was that a market that has very high growth with high profit
levels can sustain high loss rates - for a while. Which is why I
specifically said 'Internet' rather than your ordinary Waitrose (even if =
the
profits are considerably more ephemeral on the Internet: it's the growth
curve and cash flow that holds it together). Oh, and my 50% loss rate: 'O=
f
the slave-ship crews that embarked from Liverpool in 1787 less than half
returned alive' (Encyclopaedia Britannica) - rough estimate.

4) I don't understand your point: 'the trade in slaves bankrolled extreme=
ly
little ... Slavery or something approximating to it fuelled every empire
...'. That sounds dangerously like a contradiction. As you pointed out
earlier in your mail, a reduction in costs can be equivalent to an increa=
se
in profits.

5) I fear to say that you can accuse the Russian Soviet of many things, b=
ut
its workers were not slaves. Even under Stalin people were never property=
,
which as I understand it is the fundamental definition of a slave (in law=
).

6) The idea that slavery is more effective either as a labour force or in
producing one is under question. For example, slave populations often do =
not
reproduce themselves efficiently, due to an imbalance in the ratios of th=
e
sexes (ie a mining camp will only have male slaves); interestingly, howev=
er,
the USA slave history is an exception to this trend through the late 18th
and early 19th centuries, where there was an explosion in slave growth
(before then it had been quite low). This may have been due to the drying=
 up
of external supplies. More importantly, 'slavery as a means of production
hindered agrarian and industrial growth' (a view of Claude Meillassoux) h=
as
become to be seriously considered, if over-simplistic. There is a suggest=
ion
that a slave-owning society becomes distorted, and fails to develop as
efficiently as a non-slave owning one (ie the US Southern States lagged
behind the Northern ones). Whilst we can probably say that the Jury is ou=
t
on this, one can't help feeling that if slavery truly were more efficient=
 on
a sustainable level then more societies would still practise it. I suspec=
t
(but can't prove) that slavery is only profitable under certain condition=
s.

7) Given that Marx was generally studying middle-19th century England - a=
nd
borrowed much of his economics from Adam Smith and David Ricardo - I'm no=
t
sure how useful he is to this discussion.

8) As to where I have been? Why, Sir, in the good company of people with
manners.

Yours, etc.

John B