Labor is prior to, and independent of, CapitRULE
It is not needed, nor fitting here [in discussing the Civil War] that a general argument should be made in favor of popular institutions; but there is one point, with its connections, not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask a brief attention. It is the effect to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labor, in the structure of government. It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them, and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded thus far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers or what we call slaves. And further, it is assumed that whoever is once a hired laborer is fixed in that condition for life.
Now, there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless.
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.
- Abraham Lincoln
It’s a good thing Lincoln didn’t live today. With talk like that he would have been labeled a communist or enemy of the elite, and there probably would have been some conspiracy plot to kill him… oh wait.
It’s a good thing Jesus didn’t live today. With talk like that he would have been labeled a communist or enemy of the elite, and there probably would have been some conspiracy plot to kill him… oh wait.
Yeah, if someone like Lincoln got elected, conservatives would start a civil war...
If your only job is to own things, you are a parasite, not a creator.
Like banks?
Especially banks
Economies work much much better with loans. You proposing no loans, or only from heavily regulated government bodies?
No bank is not equivalent to no loans.
So who would give loans? A government agency?
Cooperatives or trade unions.
How would they operate differently to a bank?
They wouldn't be required to make a profit at the expense of society well being.
Banks aren't either. It's the goals of the shareholders that determine that. How would the goals of the stakeholders of the cooperatives or trade unions differ from those of the shareholders of current banks?
Sharholder Primacy remains the law of the land. Publicly owned companies are obligated to maximize profits at the expense of all other mores and duties.
This might work if they could be tightly regulated, perhaps, but regulatory capture isone of the most profitable efforts an industry can make.
Publicly owned companies are entirely antagonistic to the public and a public-serving government, and they are at literal war with the people.
I was corrected myself on this, public companies don't need to maximize return, they just need to do what's in the best interest of the shareholders. And the shareholders decide that maximizing return is their best interest. I'll try to find the link someone sent me.
Edit: I can't find it right now, but look into fiduciary duties, it's to act in the best interest of the shareholders, not necessarily to maximize their return.
Credit unions have two big differences:
Wouldn't the depositors still want a high interest rate? That would still incentive the same sorts of loans as current banks.
In practice, no. Depositors often take out loans at the same credit union, so they have incentive to keep it low. Even if they don't, the credit union is still one of many, and has to compete for market rates.
Generally, compared to traditional banks, credit unions in the real world have a slightly lower interest rate for loans, and a slightly higher interest rate on deposits.
Isn't fractional reserve banking using most of your deposits to make investments? If that is what you're taking about, I don't see how credit unions could give loans at all, since they'd need to keep all the money on hand. Am I misunderstanding what you're talking about?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking
Fractional reserve means they don't need to back up every dollar of a loan with a dollar in deposit. Say they get $10 dollars in deposits. They might give out 10 loans of $9 dollars each based on that deposit. $90 was put into the economy based on $10 in deposits.
This also chains to other banks. Each of those $90 will likely end up in a bank (same one or another one) as a deposit. That bank can now do the same thing. Fractional reserve thus greatly multiplies the amount of money in circulation well beyond what the central bank actually issues.
I’m doin the drywall down at the new McDonald’s
Two chicks at the same time
Chicks dig dudes with money
Well not all chicks…
Cool quote from Lincoln, never read it before. Imma see if I can get AI to paraphrase it for easier digestion...
Here, let me give it a shot:
Not really prioritized but more valuable from what I understand.
And it's not exactly "work" so much as it is "Labor" in the sense of "the people who do the work."
Office Space is a hoot
And yet, without capital the company wouldn't exist.
The useful parts of it would. People made and distributed things as well as providing services before capitalism and would continue to do so after the abolition of it.
what do you mean? do you think in an economy without capital that people would never undertake to do things?
What problem does capital solve? only that without capital people undertaking to do new things would starve in the initial phases. So what if, should a community be convinced that something is a good idea, the people involved in the attempt were just provided for?
The profit motive to form a company, which will provide you with more profit than any government program that provides for you is the driver.
I partially agree in that under our capitalist system the profit motive drives it.
It's not the only motive, capitalism is what 200 years old? maybe more if we go all the way back to the east India companies. It's not like nobody made new things before then.
Profit motive is one way to motivate people. Even if it's more effective than others (which is entirely unsubstantiated) it's astonishingly cruel.
Also there can be a motive of reasonable profit to a certain extent without this. If the reward is closer to a founders fee where the workers default to buying the company off the founder then that’s still motivating it without creating a system of petty dictators. If the labor of founding a company is treated as labor, compensated reasonably for the work put in, and comes without the risk of money addiction that may work fine.
Or we could have construction crews traveling and pulling a full music man schtick to start companies. It’s probably less efficient but way better aesthetically
A lot of things get lumped into "profit motive". Help my neighbor clean their yard for a small fee? Profit motive. Invent a cure for polio and sell it for $1? Profit motive. Establish a monopoly on a life saving drug and drive up the retail price? Profit motive.
Funny how "Profit motive" doesn't make a distinction between solving a problem and making a problem for others.
Capital generated by... labor
Is determining stability for a loan and applicable interest rates labor?
You would have to show how you made sufficient surplus from sales minus the cost of labour to pay off the loan. The business case usually has a solid section on this.
Obviously there is a future made of automation and ai but that is also the end of capitalism as the workers have not been paid to buy the product you just made.
But what is the fair cost of labor? It seemed like the meme was saying that any surplus was wrong because it should have gone to the physical laborers instead.
The laborers, management (assuming they actually manage) and administration (who generally does administrate as is underpaid like labor), so yes.
Yes it's wrong to have any surplus? So then deciding who is best to give loans to wouldn't be labor?
At this point it's difficult to say if a cooperative should return profits to the staff in dividends, or assign (possibly by sortition) someone to decide what to do once all expenses are managed. There are a number of ways to consider future expenses, including expansion and repairs. Just because we've depended on loans in this society doesn't mean loans are the only way this can be done.
What I do know is the current system is leaving us with a captured government and members of the society homeless, going hungry, freezing from the elements or imprisoned in huge numbers, so really it's time to try anything over letting the plutocratic elite stay in power. Given we're not responding to crises that could end our species, even literally hunting down and eating the elite factions is on the table (just as massacring the poor has been for all of history).
Even the capitalists openly admit in order to argue that capitalism can work, you have to make sure the population from which you draw labor isn't suffering, and we've failed to do this. (Marx explains that the capture of a public-serving government is inevitable when there is a power disparity.)
Barn-raisings happen.