For someone to make a profit, someone else must make a loss in one of those fields - usually all 3 at once.
Well idk about you, but I pretty frequently make homemade soaps and breads from scratch and no pe0ople or animals were harmed at any point. The people who harvested the ingredients profited and the people who purchase from me are gaining more value than they lose. I personally suffer no loss, I enjoy doing it and I even get paid for it on top of that.
So your presumption that there “must be a loss” is stupid and pointless. Satisfaction is constantly created and consumed, always has been and always will be no matter what system you’re in.
Unless the agriculture relies on slave labor like private prisons or authoritarian nations, yeah, they do profit. Otherwise, why would they do it? It’s not hard to not buy goods from North Korea or the FSIN, if anything I feel like you’d have to jump through hoops in order to do that.
I’m not going to waste my time debating and showing you the countless examples of just how exploited agri workers are across the world and the terrible conditions they slave away in, even in our comfy developed nations. There is zero chance you have not already been made aware of this fact and have chosen to ignore it.
Likewise I feel the majority of users here are not as deliberately ignorant as yourself, and would gain nothing from seeing you further proven wrong.
So let me get this straight. You think people travel hundreds or even thousands of miles to the Americas and Europe in order to toil in fields for large swathes of the year, at a loss? You think they not only do this for free but at cost? But I’m the one ignoring reality?
The loss is in their life, body and time. Do you think they experience a high quality of life or are they sacrificing that to get the basics to eat and shelter?
I’m going to stop replying to you now. Got better uses of my time than arguing with a AnCap/Libertarian.
Life, body, and time are leaving you at this very moment whether you work the farm or not. What “profit” is in this context is the quality of your life. In capitalism, they have the right to choose which option best furthers their lives.
Do I think there should be better standards for workers and more regulations and taxes on the rich? Yes. Does that mean we have to tear down capitalism? No.
Well idk about you, but I pretty frequently make homemade soaps and breads from scratch and no pe0ople or animals were harmed at any point
Because that doesn’t describe capitalism. The capitalist mode of production involves a business owner (capitalist) who owns the capital, and a worker who doesn’t own capital. The capital-less worker enters a “free” employment contract with the capitalist, in which the worker sells his labour time as a commodity to the capitalist to put the capital to work, in exchange for a wage lower than the total value of goods/services produced, NAD those goods/services are later sold in a free market.
What you’re describing is manufacture, not capitalism, and it was abundant in pre-capitalist societies in which a lot of the total consumption didnt come from purchases in a market.
I’m not going to give people the time when they’re arguing with dictionaries. I live in a capitalism, I participate in a free market, I set the value of my own labor the same as everyone else.
I didn’t say the word slavery at any point, I specifically talked about “free” contracts. It’s the literal definition of capitalism, I haven’t made judgment or given an opinion.
I set the value of my own labor
No, you don’t. Your wages are limited upwards by the total productivity, and downwards by the reserve army of labor. This is well studied and measured, and the only way to fight it within capitalism collectively and meaningfully is through artificial labour scarcity, i.e. unionization
Socialism isn’t imaginary, it’s materialist. The whole importance of Marx and Engels is that they defended scientific socialism as opposed to Utopian socialism. I don’t want utopias, I want real working policy.
Wages will always have an upper limit by total productivity, but they don’t need to be driven down by a labour reserve pool of unemployed people and/or poor peasants willing to migrate and become industrial proletariat. Just guarantee employment to everyone and salaries will go up dramatically. But guaranteeing employment to everyone has only been achieved by socialist revolutions.
I’m not anti-immigrstion because I’m not nationalist. Immigration does drive the wages down on the place where immigrants arrive, but it drives them up on the area of origin in the same way.
Well idk about you, but I pretty frequently make homemade soaps and breads from scratch and no pe0ople or animals were harmed at any point. The people who harvested the ingredients profited and the people who purchase from me are gaining more value than they lose. I personally suffer no loss, I enjoy doing it and I even get paid for it on top of that.
So your presumption that there “must be a loss” is stupid and pointless. Satisfaction is constantly created and consumed, always has been and always will be no matter what system you’re in.
Oh yeah, agricultural workers across the world are well known for profiting off of capitalism.
You are being so deliberately obtuse, it’s pretty sad how invested you are in defending such a system.
Unless the agriculture relies on slave labor like private prisons or authoritarian nations, yeah, they do profit. Otherwise, why would they do it? It’s not hard to not buy goods from North Korea or the FSIN, if anything I feel like you’d have to jump through hoops in order to do that.
Please stop being so dishonest.
Wow those facts totally refute my point, thank you for posting such a thorough and well thought counterargument.
Your point ignored reality.
I’m not going to waste my time debating and showing you the countless examples of just how exploited agri workers are across the world and the terrible conditions they slave away in, even in our comfy developed nations. There is zero chance you have not already been made aware of this fact and have chosen to ignore it.
Likewise I feel the majority of users here are not as deliberately ignorant as yourself, and would gain nothing from seeing you further proven wrong.
So let me get this straight. You think people travel hundreds or even thousands of miles to the Americas and Europe in order to toil in fields for large swathes of the year, at a loss? You think they not only do this for free but at cost? But I’m the one ignoring reality?
The loss is in their life, body and time. Do you think they experience a high quality of life or are they sacrificing that to get the basics to eat and shelter?
I’m going to stop replying to you now. Got better uses of my time than arguing with a AnCap/Libertarian.
Life, body, and time are leaving you at this very moment whether you work the farm or not. What “profit” is in this context is the quality of your life. In capitalism, they have the right to choose which option best furthers their lives.
Do I think there should be better standards for workers and more regulations and taxes on the rich? Yes. Does that mean we have to tear down capitalism? No.
Because that doesn’t describe capitalism. The capitalist mode of production involves a business owner (capitalist) who owns the capital, and a worker who doesn’t own capital. The capital-less worker enters a “free” employment contract with the capitalist, in which the worker sells his labour time as a commodity to the capitalist to put the capital to work, in exchange for a wage lower than the total value of goods/services produced, NAD those goods/services are later sold in a free market.
What you’re describing is manufacture, not capitalism, and it was abundant in pre-capitalist societies in which a lot of the total consumption didnt come from purchases in a market.
I’m not going to give people the time when they’re arguing with dictionaries. I live in a capitalism, I participate in a free market, I set the value of my own labor the same as everyone else.
I didn’t say the word slavery at any point, I specifically talked about “free” contracts. It’s the literal definition of capitalism, I haven’t made judgment or given an opinion.
No, you don’t. Your wages are limited upwards by the total productivity, and downwards by the reserve army of labor. This is well studied and measured, and the only way to fight it within capitalism collectively and meaningfully is through artificial labour scarcity, i.e. unionization
And in your imaginary socialism the concept of currency doesn’t exist? Your wages have an upward limit by the total productivity no matter the system.
Socialism isn’t imaginary, it’s materialist. The whole importance of Marx and Engels is that they defended scientific socialism as opposed to Utopian socialism. I don’t want utopias, I want real working policy.
Wages will always have an upper limit by total productivity, but they don’t need to be driven down by a labour reserve pool of unemployed people and/or poor peasants willing to migrate and become industrial proletariat. Just guarantee employment to everyone and salaries will go up dramatically. But guaranteeing employment to everyone has only been achieved by socialist revolutions.
So you’re anti-immigration, then? Isn’t that so much more of a “fuck you” to those poor farm workers than my stance was?
I’m not anti-immigrstion because I’m not nationalist. Immigration does drive the wages down on the place where immigrants arrive, but it drives them up on the area of origin in the same way.