Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utcsri.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!vassos
From: vassos@utcsri.UUCP (Vassos Hadzilacos)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Re: Capitalist production
Message-ID: <906@utcsri.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 20-Mar-85 19:14:01 EST
Article-I.D.: utcsri.906
Posted: Wed Mar 20 19:14:01 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 20-Mar-85 19:45:43 EST
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Lines: 28

> [...] Why indeed become a "wage slave"?  In a word: security.
> The worker is not utterly secure (who is?) but considerably more
> so than the capitalist.

The only meaning of "secure" for which this makes any sense is
that workers stand to lose less than capitalists. If that was
a reasonable definition of "security", the less you'd have
the better off you'd be, security-wise. I guess this would make
us all envy the "security" "enjoyed" by Ancient Greek slaves.

> The workers of this country make an order
> of magnitude more, in sum, than the capitalists.

If you mean "make" in the sense "make in wages" this is an understatement.
(Employed) workers make *infinitely* more in wages than capitalists,
since the latter don't make any wages. If you mean it in the sense
of "they own more wealth" then two things:

1. The validity of your assertion is doubtful: I don't have any
   statistics handy, but probably more than 50% of the USA's
   wealth is owned by capitalists.

2. Have you ever heard about division? By the same sort of argument
   one might argue that people in India consume, in sum, more food
   than people in the USA. So what does this tell you about the diet
   of the average American and the average Indian?

Vassos Hadzilacos.