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
      • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        Economies work much much better with loans. You proposing no loans, or only from heavily regulated government bodies?

                • bouh@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  They wouldn’t be required to make a profit at the expense of society well being.

                  • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    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?

                • frezik@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 months ago

                  Credit unions have two big differences:

                  • All depositors are effectively shareholders in the credit union. Any profit they make beyond paying standard interest and regular bills goes back to depositors. Those depositors are mostly regular people, and in a more socialist society, would also be companies that are otherwise owned by the workers.
                  • No fractional reserve banking, which allows banks to issue loans several times the value of their deposits. If fractional reserve was a new thing rather than something that’s been in the system for longer than anyone has been alive, it would be looked upon far more skeptically as a big scam. This is where banks are milking the rest of society for a lot of profit.