4 ms·

> Characterizing all profit as exploitation is completely baseless, extremely inflammatory, and totally irresponsible. Why? > It's totally irresponsible, and

> Characterizing all profit as exploitation is completely baseless, extremely inflammatory, and totally irresponsible. Why? > It's totally irresponsible, and it's unsurprising that every society which has accepted this pseudoscientific doctrine has turned into a Hellish dystopia full of repression. More emotional stuff. > Economists who have studied development say it is: That's regarding absolute poverty (which is a contested topic as well), not that people spend their lives in toil.

CryptoPunk 5y ago
>>Why? Because there is no basis provided for this absurd characterization. >>More emotional stuff. And Marxist dogma calling profit exploitation isn't? >>That's regarding absolute poverty (which is a contested topic as well) Absolute poverty means extreme toil. As the economy develops, wages rise and jobs become less strenuous. A more developed economy also means more household chores become possible to automate or outsource to specialists who do them far more efficiently.
- cloudfifty 5y ago
  > Because there is no basis provided for this absurd characterization. Why not? > And Marxist dogma calling profit exploitation isn't? Well, I guess some might be, but not all. Furthermore all critic of exploitation driven on by the profit incentive is not Marxist. > Absolute poverty means extreme toil. As the economy develops, wages rise and jobs become less strenuous No. They are still not synonymous. That's just a textbook example of goalpost shifting.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    >>Why not? I'm not going to play this game. When someone says something is baseless, the onus is on you to show the substance behind the claim. Asking "why not" is not even relevant to the statement.
    - cloudfifty 5y ago
      > The pursuit of captial accumulation is always dependent on the exploitation of someone's labour / time somewhere. So what's wrong here? Are not capitalists exploiting the labour and time of others to accumulate capital? It's self-evident that they do. Maybe you think that you can send just send the top 50 capitalists to the planet Mars and out comes a terraformed planet? Simply by their immense power of innovation?
      - CryptoPunk 5y ago
        >>Are not capitalists exploiting the labour and time of others to accumulate capital? They are not in any way exploiting the labor and time of others, at least not in any meaningful sense of the word 'exploit', where it connotes an immoral act that causes harm. They are trading resources for that labor and time, by making an offer that the worker is happy to take over all others. Your moral framework is totally incoherent, as it would imply that an offer that a worker is happy to receive, is an act of authoritarianism toward that worker.
        cloudfifty 5y ago
        > They are not in any way exploiting the labor and time of others, at least not in any meaningful sense of the word 'exploit', I think some very clearly are. Obviously there's level degrees here. But on the systematic level it's clearly that Capitalism depends on other people being a means to an end of other, wealthier, people. That due to their property, and others lack thereof, can indirectly force people to labour for their benefit. Thus exploiting them due to the unequal distribution of property/capital in a society that require it to survive. > They are trading resources for that labor and time, by making an offer that the worker is happy to take over all others That's not a "happy trade". It's a concession due to worse alternatives because the system people find themselves in offer no other alternatives for millions upon millions of people. That's not freedom. > Your moral framework is totally incoherent, as it would imply that an offer that a worker is happy to receive, is an act of authoritarianism toward that worker. No, it's not. People pick the less worse option all the time under authoritarian structures. You're consistently shallow in your thinking and not bothering to dive a few steps deeper and ask simple questions like why people would accept a 19th century mining job or their modern equivalents? Were those mining jobs "happy trades"?

CryptoPunk 5y ago

>>Why? Because there is no basis provided for this absurd characterization. >>More emotional stuff. And Marxist dogma calling profit exploitation isn't? >>That's regarding absolute poverty (which is a contested topic as well) Absolute poverty means extreme toil. As the economy develops, wages rise and jobs become less strenuous. A more developed economy also means more household chores become possible to automate or outsource to specialists who do them far more efficiently.

cloudfifty 5y ago
> Because there is no basis provided for this absurd characterization. Why not? > And Marxist dogma calling profit exploitation isn't? Well, I guess some might be, but not all. Furthermore all critic of exploitation driven on by the profit incentive is not Marxist. > Absolute poverty means extreme toil. As the economy develops, wages rise and jobs become less strenuous No. They are still not synonymous. That's just a textbook example of goalpost shifting.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  >>Why not? I'm not going to play this game. When someone says something is baseless, the onus is on you to show the substance behind the claim. Asking "why not" is not even relevant to the statement.
  - cloudfifty 5y ago
    > The pursuit of captial accumulation is always dependent on the exploitation of someone's labour / time somewhere. So what's wrong here? Are not capitalists exploiting the labour and time of others to accumulate capital? It's self-evident that they do. Maybe you think that you can send just send the top 50 capitalists to the planet Mars and out comes a terraformed planet? Simply by their immense power of innovation?
    - CryptoPunk 5y ago
      >>Are not capitalists exploiting the labour and time of others to accumulate capital? They are not in any way exploiting the labor and time of others, at least not in any meaningful sense of the word 'exploit', where it connotes an immoral act that causes harm. They are trading resources for that labor and time, by making an offer that the worker is happy to take over all others. Your moral framework is totally incoherent, as it would imply that an offer that a worker is happy to receive, is an act of authoritarianism toward that worker.
      - cloudfifty 5y ago
        > They are not in any way exploiting the labor and time of others, at least not in any meaningful sense of the word 'exploit', I think some very clearly are. Obviously there's level degrees here. But on the systematic level it's clearly that Capitalism depends on other people being a means to an end of other, wealthier, people. That due to their property, and others lack thereof, can indirectly force people to labour for their benefit. Thus exploiting them due to the unequal distribution of property/capital in a society that require it to survive. > They are trading resources for that labor and time, by making an offer that the worker is happy to take over all others That's not a "happy trade". It's a concession due to worse alternatives because the system people find themselves in offer no other alternatives for millions upon millions of people. That's not freedom. > Your moral framework is totally incoherent, as it would imply that an offer that a worker is happy to receive, is an act of authoritarianism toward that worker. No, it's not. People pick the less worse option all the time under authoritarian structures. You're consistently shallow in your thinking and not bothering to dive a few steps deeper and ask simple questions like why people would accept a 19th century mining job or their modern equivalents? Were those mining jobs "happy trades"?