Why do I feel this would be the result?
Yeah kid, you did.
Yes, it is. Now either show that profit is exploitation or leave. And remember, little Marxist drone: repeating your slogans won’t make it true. Further, you have no ability to actually argue a point. Do you think this is like revleft where it’s one big self-contratulatory circle-jerk on feeling bad for those who live in poverty and hating those who have a penny more than you do? Well it’s not. We demand evidence for claims, not sob stories. You claim that profit is exploitation. Well show it. Don’t just parrot the slogans, kid. If we wanted that, we’d all go watch Mr1001Marxists’ channel on YouTube and give ourselves a lobotomy (which is pretty much the same thing).
My argument is this. The workers produce more than they are rewarded for. The capital in which they are not rewarded but produce goes00 to the owner’s pocket. That is wrong. Btw, I’m a dude.
Fine. I don’t see how that has any relevance to the argument at hand.
The owners of society (minority) should not be receiving surplus capital while the majority of society has financial troubles. Why this shouldn’t happen you ask, because I am generally pro-human. I don’t like to see humans suffer.
No I will not agree because many countries have free enterprise, market economies, property rights and private ownership of the means of production.
I’m referring basically to the whole continent of Africa, various South American nations ect ect, do I really need to go into that? When you think of prosperity you don’t think of those areas.
Free enterprise: Business governed by the laws of supply and demand.
I never said renting is equivalent to ownership, I said that renting yourself to an institution is very very similar to selling yourself to an institution. Except when you own something you actually take care of it. When you rent something you are careless. That was an argument used to defend chattel slavery against wage slavery. How the hell did you get humans shouldn’t own ducks out of, in nature ducks don’t own other ducks.?
Undesirable working hours = working hours in which are considered undesirable
No.
Prove it. No slogans. No chanting. No sob stories. Proof. Now.
Why?
Again, why?
And?
You still haven’t proven it’s so.
I just did. If you are going to deny the dictionary, I don’t know how I can prove it to you. I can’t argue a point? You’re the one that keeps throwing insults and mentioning revleft like I actually care. While slipping in jokes about youtube users like it has any relevance to me. I was in no way repeating slogans. I showed you facts, mathematics, and definitions. I hate this slogan because all you “anarcho” capitalists use it but you are straw manning the hell out of me to the point in which you say I masturbate to the impoverished all whilest calling me a child and implying I’m immature. Grow up.
These wages are low compared to what? Their wages are low because their per-head quota of capital is much less then that of the more capitalistic nations. I don’t expect for you to understand this because it is not intuitive. I don’t know why you think that you can analyze this stuff on the basis of intuition. If you relied on intuition, you would claim that the world is flat.
The only way to increase the standard of living is by capital accumulation. For that you need the savings of capitalists and entrepreneurs.
If you can’t have a discussion here without devolving into immaturity, then goodbye.
No kid, the dictionary isn’t evidence. And yes, you are repeating Marxist slogans. We’ve heard it before; it’s unimpressive and immature.
As for what you “showed”; you showed us nothing but sob stories. What makes the sob stories evidence of exploitation? Show it, kid. Show it.
Am I the only one who sees the irony of using “gold” as a metophor for socialism?
It’s a shock isn’t it? Africans rejecting capitalism! I don’t see why those “studpid” africans have to be any different then you.
Yet, when many African nations accepted a free market in cell phones, strangely literacy shot up (granted not to US or EU levels) due to popular use of SMS and web surfing. Who woulda thunk?
How is it that they are not being “rewarded” as much as they produce? Btw, my bad. Your avatar fooled me. The girl in the pic, though. It’s a girl, right?
You said it is exploitation when a worker get paid less than the value of the whatever it is they produce. According to you, how is this value determined?
How did “financial troubles” get into this debate? So, stealing money from the owners for the benefit of the workers is “pro-human”?
Which ones?
When I think of prosperity, I think of the de-socialism-nization of China.
What?
You, “[r]enting yourself to another human is no different then being owned by another human.” Source: https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/why-communism-will-work-and-capitalism-won-t/6506/126
Hasty generalization.
What?
You said that [blah blah blah]. You’re the one who brought up ducks.
Lol. I get it now.
Then, you admit that an individual cannot own a means a of production, since only the collective. Thus, your whole spiel about the democracy allowing the an individual to own a factory was false.
I will allow you time to finish answering the remainder of my previous post.
This.
The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx & Engels - written 1958.
The Law by Frederic Bastiat - written 1960.
… excuse me? [8-)] Granted Bastiat wasn’t a conversative, I’m just assuming your still stuck in your BS paradigm - so you’d more than likely classify him as one. And if not, then why propose a strawman?
I don’t know Giles. It’s almost like you need to know the price of each factor of production and the price of the final product to figure that out.
That sounds too much like some kind of corporation.
I hope you’re referring to Knight of BAAWA.
Truthisnonexistent has been nothing but polite, slightly wrong, but polite.
And slightly (read: very) circular.
Truthisnonexistent, profits do not equal exploitation. That’s PHISICALY impossible.
This is the simplest way that I can put it.
Lets say you, and I are hobby farmers, and we both live in the upper northern hemisphere. I produce 100 oranges this year, and you produce 100 apples. You want oranges, and I want apples. Will you exchange with me 50 apples for 1 orange? No? How about 1 apple for 1 orange? Is that fair?
Lets say that I think so. I really want apples. I have enough oranges, and an apple or two would be nice. I agree to this exchange. EVEN THOUGH, my factors of production are more expensive for me.. I have to build a big a green house. Water the trees. Deal with disease, and pest issues that orange trees don’t normally experience. You on the other hand just let your apple trees grow in the front yard, with a minimum amount of care. EVEN IF you get hit with a tent caterpillar infestation, you will still produce 100 perfectly fine apples.
Still, I’m happy that I was able to exchange 1 orange for one apple.
Who is exploiting who?
My profit is that I value one apple more than one orange. Your profit is that you value one orange more than one apple. How many apples you have in total, and how much they cost you to produce does not invalidate MY value judgment of one of your apples.
For a third party to say that this exchange is gratuitous because your so wealthy with easy apples, and I’m so poor with difficult oranges, would it’s self be a value judgement of apples, vs oranges. A value judgement which the two of us obviously don’t share, as we have traded.
In short, if there was no profit to be had, no one would trade anything-- AT ALL… Ever.