You can restructure society to not require profit. The economy exists currently purely to increase consumption and thus profit, rather than to fulfill uses.
That’s no strawman. You just refuse to see that there is no universal way to decide upon value that fits everyone’s notion of it. If both people in an exchange come away satisfied, did one exploit the other? How do you strictly define the excess value on each side of the transaction? Your idea of a profit-less society doesn’t consider how we’d pragmatically exchange our labor to achieve that.
You can continue to pretend I haven’t thought of any of this and continue to talk down to me as you build a larger and larger strawman, it’s pretty funny.
We aren’t mind readers. If you think we are wrong, explain why. You can call an attempt at defining your poor communication a strawman, but it only shields your ideas from the test of debate.
You don’t need to produce for profit, you can produce for use. Society can be organized in such a manner without having portions of society dedicated to brainwashing the masses into being consumers of useless goods like party favors for the sake of fat cats getting richer.
You can restructure society to not require profit. The economy exists currently purely to increase consumption and thus profit, rather than to fulfill uses.
How do you define profit? If you mean creating value- no, you can’t. Life requires consumption of value. That is food, that is water, and medicine.
No. It exists because people want to exchange what they have for what they want.
Profit is producing to sell goods in a positive feedback loop for more money. You don’t need to have profit.
So your issue is people consensually exchanging their labor?
Nope, but you’re free to continue building a strawman.
That’s no strawman. You just refuse to see that there is no universal way to decide upon value that fits everyone’s notion of it. If both people in an exchange come away satisfied, did one exploit the other? How do you strictly define the excess value on each side of the transaction? Your idea of a profit-less society doesn’t consider how we’d pragmatically exchange our labor to achieve that.
You can continue to pretend I haven’t thought of any of this and continue to talk down to me as you build a larger and larger strawman, it’s pretty funny.
We aren’t mind readers. If you think we are wrong, explain why. You can call an attempt at defining your poor communication a strawman, but it only shields your ideas from the test of debate.
You don’t need to produce for profit, you can produce for use. Society can be organized in such a manner without having portions of society dedicated to brainwashing the masses into being consumers of useless goods like party favors for the sake of fat cats getting richer.