The only way of destroying the profit motive is destroying all possible means for people to better their own lot, or that of their families. If you don't destroy those, then that will always be your built-in profit motive courtesy of human nature.
The only way of achieving that is confiscatory, and in the case of children, removing them from the care of their parents.
Just because it's not a Fortune 500 company doesn't make profit meaningless.
@jankoekepan you literally said “The only way of destroying the profit motive is destroying all possible means for people to better their own lot, or that of their families.” Maybe you can’t imagine a version of the world founded on generosity and truly efficient allocation of the world’s resources, but I can.
Plus, all profits are the stolen wages of workers like me. We create value through our labor and receive a starvation wage in return, while the capitalists steal the rest.
If you're that afraid of discussing your holy cows, please, for the love of whatever you hold holy, block me.
Do us both a favour.
If you actually have the courage to investigate things, rescind your decision and let me know you're up for learning something.
@jankoekepan I’m not afraid of discussing anything. You’re a rando (strike 1) from m.s (strike 2), your bio is 1 word (strike 3), and YOU came into MY mentions claiming to have knowledge of the true nature of humankind and how it coincidentally supports the status quo—which in case you’ve forgotten is killing the planet. You’re out.
Death. To. Capitalism.
OK, so let's discuss.
The profit motive is not something defined by money. In fact, it's not even defined by a system in which money exists. You can have a profit motive, alive and well, in a pre-modern tribal society. What form does it take?
The improvement of conditions. A more productive vegetable garden. Children with valuable skills. A larger flock of sheep, or a stock of excellent fish traps. Things that make life better. That is the essence. (contd.)
People in general have a very long, cross-cultural, historic track record of wanting to improve things for themselves and for their children. Outside of self-destructive outliers such as drug addicts, it's about as close to a human universal as we have.
Any society that does not preclude self-improvement or support of family includes the profit motive as a direct consequence of this. (contd.)
Corollary: the only way of removing the profit motive entirely from society, independent of any hypothetical altruistic habits, is to render any such actions moot by confiscating products of work and precluding individualised support of children.
You stated among your desiderata, "destroy the profit motive". There's your target, there's your method.
@jankoekepan this was possibly the most verbose way of deliberately misunderstanding “profit motive” and “means of production.” I’m not talking about “self-improvement” and I’m definitely not talking about my fucking mastodon mentions.
Just like this post so I know you saw it and I’ll block you.
Economics has a long history, and was well under way as a study before Marx ever put pen to paper. I'm no Ph.D. in it, but I've studied it formally, and not, for years.
Please, do explain how I got the notion of profit wrong. Details, specifics and citations welcome.
Not quite sure how I ended on this thread, but also checked out a few of your other toots.
You appear to have a view of economics / motivation based on (hyper?) individualism. Somewhat how I understand economics is often taught - describing the world in a way that aligns with neo liberal thought.
Think you could benefit from considering some alternative viewpoints.
You ever looked at Graebers research that backed his book Debt?
I'm familiar with that. I've already analysed and debunked that argument. It starts from a broken premise, and ends in a push for MMT (or MMR, if you're very charitable). It also ignores large chunks of well-documented historical record in historic Britain, to say nothing of Europe. But that aside ...
I'm not a hyperindividualist. I'm a pragmatic policy wonk, politically unaligned. I've studied economics from Smith to Marx, from Trotsky to Terreblanche(cntd)
... from Chomsky (inasmuch as he's an economist, which isn't much) to Castro. I'm mostly interested in what actually works.
To the extent that I have a political position (other than "whatever works best") I'm a civil libertarian, because I've seen (and lived) oppression and it sucks.