Mises: Commerce and Civilization

[BillyTK]

Marxists are not against the merchant class at all.

But what about Marx's analysis that the rise of the merchant class liberated serfs from feudal oppression, but then in the transition to industrial society, the merchant class became the serf/working class's new oppressors by controlling the means of production?

 

[BillyTK]

Most marxists are the spoilt offspring of upper class parents. It wouldn't do to bite the hand that feeds you. I shudder to think what might have happened had any of the Socialist Workers Party in my college been forced to do some actual work.

Most marxists aren't, but I wholly agree with you about the Socialist Workers' Party, and particularly the members who are spoilt offspring of upper class parents!

OTOH this capitalist spent his summers grinding and buffing sheet metal, or mixing cement.

I think you're going wrong somewhere with the capitalist thing!

 

[BillyTK]

Absolute and complete bullsh*t. They provide goods and services, and get compensated for them, just like laborers do.

No it's not; if we're going to use Marx's terminology, let's at least use it according to his definitions; a capitalist is someone who draws all or most of their income from the surplus created by the capital they own, whether that capital is property or means of production. If they're providing goods and services from their own labour, they ain't capitalists; they're only capitalists if they're generating surplus from the labour of others.

 

[Leif Roar]

No, the free market system was making slavery obsolete. Go learn history.

Slaves were bought and sold in a fairly (if not completely) unregulated market - and for a long period of time these free markets helped slavery proliferate. Then, for various reasons, conditions changed, and the cost of slaves rose. The free market now curbed the use of slavery to some degree (but, in the case of the US, it still took a war to get rid of the institutonalized slavery throughout the country.)

You want to assign credit to the market curbing slavery on the "down slope", but not accept the market's blame for encouraging slavery on the "up slope."

 

[Tormac]

I think it is really stretching things a bit to claim that the ideas and principles of free-market capitalism lead to slavery. Most of the economies that slavery flourished in were certainly not free-market capitalist societies, but variations of command economies such as mercantilism that flourished in Europe in the 17th and 18th century.

Slavery was on the way out in most economies, after the industrial revolution, and the notions of a laissez-faire started to become well known, as I think shanek alluded to.

To the extent that slavery held on in some societies, is often attributable to the concepts of mercantilism that also lingered (such as the unindustrialized southern states of the United States).

 

[Leif Roar]

I think it is really stretching things a bit to claim that the ideas and principles of free-market capitalism lead to slavery. Most of the economies that slavery flourished in were certainly not free-market capitalist societies, but variations of command economies such as mercantilism that flourished in Europe in the 17th and 18th century.

I didn't mean to imply that the concept of free trade / "the free market" lead to slavery. Rather, I wanted to point out that free trade is neutral in this regard, in that it has both helped and hindered the proliferation of slavery at different times. I don't think it's intellecutally honest to look only at the times when free trade has hampered slavery, and use that as an argument that free trade is by nature good.

In the post by Shanek which I replied to, he didn't talk about "free-market capitalism", but only the "free market". (Anyway, I don't really think it's useful to talk about capitalism until the emergency of industrialism. In my opinion, it's only at that point that the production of goods had shifted so far towards being capital intensive rather than labour intensive that one can really talk about "capitalism" as an economic reality.)

Slavery was on the way out in most economies, after the industrial revolution, and the notions of a laissez-faire started to become well known, as I think shanek alluded to.

While the market forces (pushed by the technological advances at the time) were starting to discourage slavery, this effect was in my opinion not inherent to the free market (as the market forces at other times in history had pushed the other way), and much less efficent in curbing slavery than was goverment mandates.

To the extent that slavery held on in some societies, is often attributable to the concepts of mercantilism that also lingered (such as the unindustrialized southern states of the United States).

Frankly, I think that the reason why slavery lingered for so long in the Caribean and southern United States was simply the nature of the plantations, which required large operations with large amounts of unskilled labour.

 

[Tormac]

Leif Roar wrote

Frankly, I think that the reason why slavery lingered for so long in the Caribean and southern United States was simply the nature of the plantations, which required large operations with large amounts of unskilled labour.

But when the plantations systems were created it was under the aegis of mercantilism, not free-market capitalism.

Free-market capitalism is a relatively new idea. It was not in place when the classical Greek and Roman societies were dependent on a slave underclass. It was not Free-Market Capitalist societies that lead to the Medieval serf's toiling with the two other Estates riding on their back. Free-Market Capitalism was not in place when the European powers spread their empires on the backs of indigenous peoples. Free-Market Capitalism is a response to the failed practices of Mercantilism and the Industrial Revolution.

This seems to be a common misconception that somehow there are only two economic systems to-date, and everything that is not Communism/Socialism/Marxism must be Free-Market Capitalism. It is not the case. The notion of a laissez-faire economy came about in response to the failures of the control economy of Mercantilism. It does predate Marxism by about 100 years, but even much of what Marx and Engel saw as economic abuses were not the abuses of a laissez-faire economy, but the remnants of Mercantilism that spawned the huge plantation systems.

 

[Tormac]

Leif Roar wrote

In the post by Shanek which I replied to, he didn't talk about "free-market capitalism", but only the "free market". (Anyway, I don't really think it's useful to talk about capitalism until the emergency of industrialism. In my opinion, it's only at that point that the production of goods had shifted so far towards being capital intensive rather than labour intensive that one can really talk about "capitalism" as an economic reality.)

It is important to note that it was a command economy that was in place before the industrial revolution, at least for Europe and her colonies. The autocratic governments of Europe strictly controlled markets, demanding that their colonies were only allowed to sell goods and natural resources to the colonizer, and the colonies were only allowed to import manufactured goods from the colonizer. Strict tariffs were in place that greatly favored the colonizer.

This is one of the factors that helped keep slaves in check in island colonizes, and insured that even if there was a successful revolution the newly found slave societies would continue to live in squalor and be economically dependent on the European powers. Markets were not free. It was a crime for Spanish colonies to export to England. It was a crime for the English colonies to import their tea from anyone but the British companies. Often there was only a single government sanctioned company that was allowed to manufacture, import, or export any given good.

Defiantly not a free-market, but a highly regulated, controlled market place with oppressive tax rates.

You are right Leif about when it is useful to talk about capitalism, because it realy did not exsist as an "ecconomic reality" before the industrial revolution.

 

[shanek]

shanek how much work do you think goes into investing a millions dollars?

A lot. It takes a lot of work to get the millions of dollars in the first place, and then it takes a lot of work to decide where the money can best be invested.

I wonder how much work the CEO of Cisco or GM does, I bet they put more hours in the office in than I do. Maybe they are not "capitalists" either then.

I can't speak to that specifically, but it is a lot of work and a lot of stress.

 

[shanek]

No it's not; if we're going to use Marx's terminology,

Who says we have to use Marx's terminology? Why does he get to rewrite the dictionary to fit his arguments?

a capitalist is someone who draws all or most of their income from the surplus created by the capital they own,

From the "surplus," huh? What do you think happens to the rest of it?

whether that capital is property or means of production. If they're providing goods and services from their own labour, they ain't capitalists; they're only capitalists if they're generating surplus from the labour of others.

What you're failing to consider is that the investment of capital is in itself a form of labor exchange. There's no logical difference between an employer paying a wage in return for labor and an investor financing a company expecting a ROI.

 

[shanek]

Slaves were bought and sold in a fairly (if not completely) unregulated market -

You are kidding, right? Have you ever read the Constitution as it was initially passed?

Besides, slavery, by definition, could not exist in an unregulated market because there would be nothing to enforce teh servitude if the slave escaped. That's why they needed the Fugitive Slave laws.

Then, for various reasons, conditions changed, and the cost of slaves rose. The free market now curbed the use of slavery to some degree (but, in the case of the US, it still took a war to get rid of the institutonalized slavery throughout the country.)

That just isn't true. The US was well on the way towards ending slavery without the war, and the increase in wealth and technology that results from the free market was making it obsolete. There needn't have been any war to free the slaves.

but not accept the market's blame for encouraging slavery on the "up slope."

Because the market didn't do so. It took the force of government.