But they don’t justify slavery. They don’t have to work for Slim. They can create their own work. But if they want to receive a wage, then they need access to a capitalist who has the means to pay them. Otherwise, they must become entrepreneurs and create their own opportunities to make money.
The wage class exists because people do not want to engage in entrepreneurial risk. They want to work and get paid today, or this week. They don’t want to wait 6 months to sell the thing they were making in order to receive a wage.
They are only dependent on capitalists if they want a wage. If they want to work for themselves, they dont need a capitalist.
The workers didn’t decide in Russia. The party decided. The party bosses, who were bourgeiose. They planned the economy, they were fat, they had nice cars and fancy apartments. Most russians had to stand in line all day just to get potatoes and vodka. Again, Russia couldn’t even feed its people. They had to beg for grain from the western capitalists to feed their people.
Do you know anyone from Russia? You should check out Yuri Maltsev. You should read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.
There a page in Genesis, Bible, on that Joseph negotiates with Pharaoh the slavery of hebrews. Imagine the Pharaoh arguig to Moses that slavery was negotiated. Cases as this there were many in history of slavery. This yours argument creates an intellectual justification for slavery, is this that I’m saying.
In Antiquity, also was said that slave was blamed for their situation, because “failed to pay their rent”. Also could purchase citizenship. Be justified?
Seach on workers’ council and vide if only “party decided”. The workers decided collectivelly. Was stalinism that bureucratized the process. But under bureucracy, russians lived well better that present time.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Gulags, not forgot that englishmen liberals (as Jeremy Bentham plaised by Mises) defended the imposition of workhouses. Remember that the englishmans and americans exchanged of accusations. United States it proclaimed “freedom land”, but the englishmens (that also it proclamed “freedom land”) disliked and denounced slavery in “freedom land”. The americans, on the other hand, denouncied the workhouses in other “freedom land”. According to americans ownersslaves, the workhouses was worse that slavery. What explain on this?
On China, in period 1950-1975 (according UNPD), the quality of life of chineses bettered substantially.
I just want to confirm LS’s point above. The fundamental difference between a wage earner and capitalist is frequency of pay, but risk and responsibility are also equally as important. The laborer demands payment in high frequency, on a weekly/bi-weekly/monthly schedule to augment his living conditions.
The capitalist earns no wage, he waits to receive interest after his investments have appreciated. IE he puts his money aside, and expects to earn interest at a later date.
A laborer who wants to receive the alleged full value of his labor, essentially needs to ask his capitalist boss, to hold his wages until the product has delivered appreciation over the original investment. At that time the laborer is essentially becoming a capitalist. If he cannot afford to not get paid for a year then he cannot participate and he will need to get paid in the now. In that case the laborer gets paid what his labor is worth today, not what the fruit of his labor will appreciate to in the future.
If a laborer does choose to become a capitalist however he also assumes the risk of loss, should the original investment not appreciate. While all other laborers are comforted with the fact that they receive a monthly income, the capitalist sweats it out for a year hoping he breaks even or better.
As for the whole class differentiation argument, well thats sheer folly. Laborers acquire capital and play the interest game in other ways, just not directly in their job necessarily. Everyone is a Capitalist, even the Marxists.
he fundamental difference between a wage earner and capitalist is frequency of pay, but risk and responsibility are also equally as important. The laborer demands payment in high frequency, on a weekly/bi-weekly/monthly schedule to augment his living conditions.
The capitalist earns no wage, he waits to receive interest after his investments have appreciated. IE he puts his money aside, and expects to earn interest at a later date.
According to your own arguements, this one you just put forth is entirely bogus;
There is no logical distinction between a capitalist and a laborer, as someone above already mentioned ~Filc
f you continue to believe the false dichotomy of laborer/capitalist as the two being different, then I could see why you and Rob struggle with this. ~Filc
No offense but even if your system is arbitrary your still trying to make a distinction between different types of individuals. Your performing the exact same error as Rob, even if you don’t agree with him ~Filc
Again your committing the same fallacy in attempting to categorization people as if this were a taxonomy class. The whole concept of classes is silly. Being a capitalist is not one of passive individual categorization. Being a capitalist implies an action or behavior, just like being a runner. It’s something you do, not something you are. It would be more appropriate to say people “play” capitalism or people go “capitalizing” as in a verb. ~Filc
The fundamental difference between a wage earner and capitalist is that earner of capitalist comes of work of others. As the own Mises said, capitalist live without working, to he earning without working, somebody have to working to he. For other hand, wage earner is not equivalent at their total earner. “The capitalist earns no wage, he waits to receive interest after his investments have appreciated.” - In short, capitalist produces nothing, live only of interest.
So according to the slob above, everyone is a Capitalist, despite having as only property only the workforce?
“There is no logical distinction between a capitalist and a laborer, as someone above already mentioned” - Even BÖHM-BAWERK criticized economists for say this stupidity and that the economic science and in pratical life capital id treated as “great social problem” not as a conception embraced labour, but a concept the “opposed capital and labor”. And this slob says that “false dichotomy”. Neither read the written of austrians.
You know that if being a capitalist were really that easy everyone would do it right. Workers live above sustenence levels. They could pool their surprlus and become capital owners. They could form co-ops. They don’t because being an entrepreneur is actually a rare skill. You have to have a business model that is superior to the other business models on the market…
You only say on the “great famine” (how many, killed of famine under capitalism? Made this account?), not there nothing good in China. Not remember that the standard of living of chineses bettered substantially in period 1949-1975. Life expectancy increased of less tham 40 in 1949 to 63 years of age at birth in 1975 (according UNPD).
Indeed, Smiling Dave. MarLen doesn’t realize that, in the passage he quoted in the OP, Mises was merely explaining an untenable position in order to counter it.