The thing is, the people would still be making a profit under socialism and communism.
The difference is it wouldn’t be at the expense of others, it wouldn’t be to a point they can hoard necessities from others, and it wouldn’t all be funneled to some trust fund rich kid asshole who’s provided nothing of value to this world.
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?
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.
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.
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.
The thing is, the people would still be making a profit under socialism and communism.
The difference is it wouldn’t be at the expense of others, it wouldn’t be to a point they can hoard necessities from others, and it wouldn’t all be funneled to some trust fund rich kid asshole who’s provided nothing of value to this world.
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?
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.
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.
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.