[ show plain text ]
Let me see if I have this straight.
There is a "lack of freedom for the slave-owner." [I prefer the term
enslaver or kidnapper, but we're talking about the same class]. The
enslaving capitalist is less free than the manufacturing capitalist because
the latter can fire "pure" wage
laborers, while the former cannot.
They can sell the fixed capital like selling the used machine.
I'm at a lost to understand why getting
fired is a greater inducement to work harder, faster, or smarter than any
of the options available to an enslaver. Such options include 1) separating
families by selling away parents, children, etc., 2) bull-whipping those
who do not work hard enough, 3) working the enslaved up to the maximum
substainable hours per day and days per week, 4) eliminating holidays,
5)increasing or decreasing the amount of meat in the diet of the enslaved,
6) socially isolating the enslaved during non-work periods.
It cannot be a question of choice but a destiny imposed by force.
Human laboring activity remains human laboring activity, even when the
humans have no legal rights the enslaving persons are bound to respect.
It is bizarre to argue that enslavement eliminates the production of
It is not because the labor is human that human labor produces values. Only when the agent of production is labor it can produce a value. Individual human labor cannot be such a thing and so cannot produce value. Commodity producing labors do not produce value because they are human. They might not be human but inhuman since theycan often be alienated.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 21 2000 - 09:47:58 EDT