• mister_monster@monero.town
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    So in such a system, distribution of resources wouldn’t be centrally planned? Resources would be distributed in a free market? A farm owner for example who worked their own farm would be free to sell his produce how he sees fit?

      • mister_monster@monero.town
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        So what if, suppose, that farm owner had some neighbors that weren’t fortunate enough to own a farm for whatever reason, let’s say they were migrants from a less plentiful place, and decided it would be good for them and himself if he paid them so they wouldn’t starve to help him out on his farm. An open market for labor you might say. Would he still be able to sell that produce how he sees fit?

          • mister_monster@monero.town
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            But he’s making value from someone else’s labor, that they traded freely to him in voluntarily in a market for labor.

            • Platomus@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              No. If he’s still working beside them (like you said in your example), then his labor is making the value. He is entitled to that value.

              It’s impossible to “make” value from someone else’s labor. The person doing the labor created the value.

              Your example also isn’t them voluntarily working for him. You said in your example that it was either work for him or starve.

              If he’s not and he’s sitting doing nothing - creating no value - then he gets nothing.

              • mister_monster@monero.town
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Every single living thing on earth labors under threat of starvation. That’s not a shortcoming of any particular economic system, that’s a shortcoming of nature, if you can even call it a shortcoming.

                He profits from the labor of others. Does he deserve what he gets for it? It’s mutually beneficial mind you.

                • Platomus@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  There are 100% people that live under capitalism and don’t work, but don’t ever have to worry about starving.

                  There are people who get unfairly given more profit than they work for.

                  There are people who unfairly get less of the profits than they deserve.

                  I’m saying it should be fairly distributed by the workers. You’re pretending it isn’t an issue.

                  I’m explicitly saying he should not profit from the others labor. I’m explicitly saying they should be fairly compensated for their labor.

                  • mister_monster@monero.town
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    See now you’re just avoiding continuing with this line of reasoning because you see where it’s headed and it’s not good for your ideology. I’m doing a thought experiment here, demonstrating that free markets are in fact incompatible with communist ideas, fundamentally because people cannot be free to sell their own labor on their own terms.