The difference is [the profit you make under socialism/communism] wouldn’t be at the expense of others
How is that possible? Isn’t “profit” defined as value you get in excess of the value of the thing you traded for? Isn’t profit “at the expense of others” by definition?
I mean if I plant tomatoes, water them, and pick them, I’m profiting from the nutrients in the soil, the sun and the rain, as well as countless other factors.
Depends how you define “expense”. A good service provided at a fair price, all stakeholders benefit. My CSA share of a farmers produce gives me cheap, quality veggies and gives the farmer consistent cash flow regardless of disease/weather/whatever. We clearly both benefit. Someone else buying UPFs from Walmart because they have literally no other option to affordably feed their family in their neighbourhood… maybe not such a good deal for the consumer.
P.s. Profit is the value in excess of the cost of good sold, not over what the buyer values it as. In a “good” transaction (where the parties are transacting at parity, without monopolistic/exploitative practice) the price is less than the consumer would be willing to pay (the “value” for them) but still enough for the seller to be compensated for the risk and cost they took in buying/making and stocking the product.
You know the saying “one man’s trash is another man’s treasure”? Trade creates value because certain items are most valuable to certain people, and getting them where they’re most needed is a valuable service.
Profit can also be achieved without stealing from others via the creation valuable items. A finished product can be more valuable than its individual pieces and the time and skills used to create it.
Socialism and communism isn’t about abolishing production and trade, it’s about collectivising ownership of the means of production and its profit so that just a few people can’t eat up all of the profits.
Yes, you are right. Profit is surplus by definition. When we are talking about conducting our affairs under socialism, there is no such concept. If a business under socialism were to expand its operations through investment, that’s not profit.
If I buy a bunch of seeds, plant them, grow a bunch of vegetables, and sell the vegetables for more than the price I paid for everything (seeds, fertilizer, tool wear and tear, and any other expenses related to the garden), I have made a profit. It doesn’t come at the expense of anyone.
It wouldn’t be fair to insist I sell the vegetables at exactly the cost of everything I put into them. I put my own labour into growing them and bringing them to market. If I couldn’t profit by selling them then I wouldn’t sell them, I’d just eat them myself or not even bother growing them at all.
Another “gift” of nature is its capacity to absorb and remediate the pollution from our industries. Some of us have grown rich by exploiting this capacity, although unlike solar power there is a limit.
Not to contradict you in any way. But just to introduce the concept for the unfamiliar
“Profit” is after labour costs. If you are the one selling the seeds, or managing the operation, you pay yourself for that work before profit.
It’s a funny example, because many of the “farm coops” that actually sell seeds and agriculture supplies are already non-profit structures.
Even debts to creditors supplying capital are before profit. Profit is the surplus that is un-earned, and the direct result of charging more than necessary, or under-paying for supplies, labour, or capital.
Where do you think the person who paid you got the money, and the person who gave them their money, etc.
Economics is not a closed system where everything cycles around with perfect precision, each person have exactly the amount of money required at a time and paying exactly the right price for exactly the right supply.
There’s a lot of ways to make profit without exploiting others or hoarding private property of valuables and infrastructure that is needed by the needy.
You got some good examples in other comments.
My ultimate point is that the average Joe will still work for an income greater than what they had prior to the work. However, it’d be a true meritocracy and they couldn’t accumulate to a point of harming others, like the rich do today.
How is that possible? Isn’t “profit” defined as value you get in excess of the value of the thing you traded for? Isn’t profit “at the expense of others” by definition?
I mean if I plant tomatoes, water them, and pick them, I’m profiting from the nutrients in the soil, the sun and the rain, as well as countless other factors.
Depends how you define “expense”. A good service provided at a fair price, all stakeholders benefit. My CSA share of a farmers produce gives me cheap, quality veggies and gives the farmer consistent cash flow regardless of disease/weather/whatever. We clearly both benefit. Someone else buying UPFs from Walmart because they have literally no other option to affordably feed their family in their neighbourhood… maybe not such a good deal for the consumer.
P.s. Profit is the value in excess of the cost of good sold, not over what the buyer values it as. In a “good” transaction (where the parties are transacting at parity, without monopolistic/exploitative practice) the price is less than the consumer would be willing to pay (the “value” for them) but still enough for the seller to be compensated for the risk and cost they took in buying/making and stocking the product.
You know the saying “one man’s trash is another man’s treasure”? Trade creates value because certain items are most valuable to certain people, and getting them where they’re most needed is a valuable service.
Profit can also be achieved without stealing from others via the creation valuable items. A finished product can be more valuable than its individual pieces and the time and skills used to create it.
Socialism and communism isn’t about abolishing production and trade, it’s about collectivising ownership of the means of production and its profit so that just a few people can’t eat up all of the profits.
Yes, you are right. Profit is surplus by definition. When we are talking about conducting our affairs under socialism, there is no such concept. If a business under socialism were to expand its operations through investment, that’s not profit.
If I buy a bunch of seeds, plant them, grow a bunch of vegetables, and sell the vegetables for more than the price I paid for everything (seeds, fertilizer, tool wear and tear, and any other expenses related to the garden), I have made a profit. It doesn’t come at the expense of anyone.
It wouldn’t be fair to insist I sell the vegetables at exactly the cost of everything I put into them. I put my own labour into growing them and bringing them to market. If I couldn’t profit by selling them then I wouldn’t sell them, I’d just eat them myself or not even bother growing them at all.
This is known as the free gifts of nature.
Another “gift” of nature is its capacity to absorb and remediate the pollution from our industries. Some of us have grown rich by exploiting this capacity, although unlike solar power there is a limit.
Not to contradict you in any way. But just to introduce the concept for the unfamiliar
“Profit” is after labour costs. If you are the one selling the seeds, or managing the operation, you pay yourself for that work before profit.
It’s a funny example, because many of the “farm coops” that actually sell seeds and agriculture supplies are already non-profit structures.
Even debts to creditors supplying capital are before profit. Profit is the surplus that is un-earned, and the direct result of charging more than necessary, or under-paying for supplies, labour, or capital.
Where do you think the person who paid you got the money, and the person who gave them their money, etc.
Economics is not a closed system where everything cycles around with perfect precision, each person have exactly the amount of money required at a time and paying exactly the right price for exactly the right supply.
There’s a lot of ways to make profit without exploiting others or hoarding private property of valuables and infrastructure that is needed by the needy.
You got some good examples in other comments.
My ultimate point is that the average Joe will still work for an income greater than what they had prior to the work. However, it’d be a true meritocracy and they couldn’t accumulate to a point of harming others, like the rich do today.