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
  • folkrav@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    What difference does it make, in the real world? Which publicly traded companies have their shareholders “decide” that maximizing returns is not their priority?

    • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Exactly, but I think that would hold true for any owners. So banks owned by the people would eventually devolve to the same point, since they would have the same selfish incentives.