The relationship between business management and slavery is stupidly obvious. No reasonable person would deny it- both systems ask their workers to work, and th

The relationship between business management and slavery is stupidly obvious. No reasonable person would deny it- both systems ask their workers to work, and the harder and faster the better. Duh. The article tries to make some sort of grand moral insight out of this, all while avoiding moral terms for the first arc of it's narrative. Then, having sufficiently emboldened itself, in the second arc, it makes very very vague moral claims. The peppered historical stories highlight the idea that many powerful people of the past and present denied the relationship by omission. Seems like a vacuous argument. >Modern narratives of capitalist development often emphasize the positive-sum outcomes of many individual choices. They suggest that free, even selfish, decisions go hand in hand with growth and innovation. They often assume that vast wealth accumulated by a few accompanies improved circumstances for many. The history of slavery’s capitalism warns against all these expectations. >Reckoning with these uncomfortable histories can help us to see the deep connections between capitalism and control and, perhaps, even to find a more humane way forward. What do we actually get out of this? A headline with subtext that implies that business is evil, all while talking in circles. The article itself was never intended to be read critically. Boston Review just wants it's readership to know that headlines like this are worth publishing, and that we all need to lean a bit more to the left.