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.
As a wage laborer, I am chosen by a capitalist or their delegate, to do work for a wage. I can choose from a handful of places offering similar wages. The wage may allow me to pay rent on a place to live, transportation and acquire food.
If I do not take a job from the handful that I compete for with others, I will be homeless, without access to transportation and without food. For the wage laborer, capitalism is get lucky and find a wage contract or starve.
While working I produce enough to cover more than that wage. The capitalist pockets the excess of my labor. I live pay check to pay check. The capitalist buys another home. The extraction is in the exchange of labor for wages.
If you lived in a bare minimum stable democracy there would likely be plenty of options for food if not housing, and that’s still considered like mid-tier social safety net at best. Capitalism doesn’t necessitate any unfair concentration of wealth to the top, that isn’t what the word means.
Tearing down and removing all traces of Capitalism does not solve any of the problems of food or housing security. In fact, in the two largest attempts ever made to remove capitalism, the USSR and the CCP revolutions, millions of people died because of failure to produce food to meet demands.
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.
As a wage laborer, I am chosen by a capitalist or their delegate, to do work for a wage. I can choose from a handful of places offering similar wages. The wage may allow me to pay rent on a place to live, transportation and acquire food.
If I do not take a job from the handful that I compete for with others, I will be homeless, without access to transportation and without food. For the wage laborer, capitalism is get lucky and find a wage contract or starve.
While working I produce enough to cover more than that wage. The capitalist pockets the excess of my labor. I live pay check to pay check. The capitalist buys another home. The extraction is in the exchange of labor for wages.
If you lived in a bare minimum stable democracy there would likely be plenty of options for food if not housing, and that’s still considered like mid-tier social safety net at best. Capitalism doesn’t necessitate any unfair concentration of wealth to the top, that isn’t what the word means.
Tearing down and removing all traces of Capitalism does not solve any of the problems of food or housing security. In fact, in the two largest attempts ever made to remove capitalism, the USSR and the CCP revolutions, millions of people died because of failure to produce food to meet demands.