Stuff like what we call today the service economy - body servants, cooks, etc etc. A cook and a body servant, for arguments sake, are both exchanging their labour power for the labour power of others; neither is a commodity retailer (although a cook might be a baker, and thus retail the product of their labour rather than their labour power directly).
So I see the correct reading of "no traditional rights to the labour of others" means that they don't have class rights the way layers of aristocracy do; in which case the Lunar situation is much like the rise of the bourgeoisie in Europe, in which mass labour has to be arranged by different forms of social relation than that employed by the ancien regime.
> The numbers are not on the scale of the African Slave Trade. The
No, sure - in most ways the triangle trade is operating with rather different circumstances. But big chunks of the population of Rome were slaves or ex-slaves. Do slaves work exclusively in the latifundia, or also baths, public amentiies, private assistants etc? What proportion of the population in lunar cities would be slaves?
Powered by hypermail