If you support the right of money to be earned by work, then why do support private owners claiming profit, by depriving workers of the full value generated by their labor?
Is profit not antagonist to the values you espouse?
Farmers where I come from are generally the owner and the worker. They already get the “full” value generated.
Funnily enough due to the government paying them, this allows the manufacturers and stores to drive down the price of goods (when bought from the producer).
The main idea behind this was to drive down the value of goods for the consumer and to ensure the EU produces food locally, but it has created an ugly transfer of wealth where manufacturers and stores now earn more. Consumer barely sees the difference.
So most likely something should change for manufacture and vendors as well if the system was to be made fair.
Locking prices for manufacture and vendors is not a thing. Giving subsidies to them will stifle competition.
Agriculture subsidies do help producers compete with China, US and other outside markets, but at the cost of reward for labor.
I think the system is not oppressive, but it certainly is not fair. Issues crop up in the middle of the value chain and there are no easy solutions.
If farmers produce food by working lands they own, then they are not being exploited by land owners.
However, as you observe, under our currrent systems, the value they realize from their labor is determined by food prices, as resolved by markets through which food is commodified.
Businesses that exploit workers also participate in commodity food markets.
Thus, as long as food is produced by profiting from worker exploitation, and is exchanged through commodity markets, all food production and distribution is bound to the profit motive, and therefore subject to distortion away from satisfaction of human need for survival and flourishing.
I believe practices such as the one you describe, in principle may serve to mitigate some such distortions, and to advance the interests of the working class.
Unfortunately, EU states, as other states around the world, have now fallen under neoliberalism, which simply exacerbates the wealth transfer from workers to large owners that is already inevitable as a structural consequence of relations under capitalist production and distribution.
Now, you have not answered my question.
Is profit not antagonist to the values you espouse?
The value of products realized at the point of sale, minus the costs of (non-labor) inputs and operating expenses, is the value generated by the labor of workers in a business.
If a business is privately owned for the profit of its owners, then the profit is a share of the value generated by the workers, but claimed by owners, who contribute no labor toward generating the value.
Suppose there is a a construction company that wins a million dollar contract to build parking lots. How should the owner compensate workers? What about subcontractors and suppliers?
I am sorry you are struggling so much with your comprehension of concepts.
I will try to make the matter completely plain.
Agriculture is a practice for land utilization, involving labor, to produce food.
Business is a social structure, within which workers, through utilizing a productive asset claimed as the private property of the business, and through providing their labor to the business, create a product whose sale generates a profit for the business owner.
Agriculture may occur within the context of a private business, by utilizing lands claimed as its private property, to produce food for sale, through the labor provided by workers.
Accordingly, a private business may generate a profit by the sale of food, produced through utilizing lands claimed as its private property, and through the labor provided by workers.
Now, please pay very close attention.
Business may create a product not through utilizing land, and even may create a product that is not food.
Even more remarkably, agriculture may occur outside of private business, and may even occur utilizing lands not claimed as private property.
In summary, all of the following are true…
Some agriculture is through a business.
Some business is agricultural.
Some business is not agricultural.
Some agriculture is not through business
Hopefully, you are now beginning to understand the concepts that you previously have experienced as elusive and confounding.
If not, then I doubt anyone can help you further, except to suggest that you reread in a few days after letting your thoughts settle.
If you cannot respond to my explanation constructively, then please take your trolling elsewhere.
If you support the right of money to be earned by work, then why do support private owners claiming profit, by depriving workers of the full value generated by their labor?
Is profit not antagonist to the values you espouse?
Farmers where I come from are generally the owner and the worker. They already get the “full” value generated.
Funnily enough due to the government paying them, this allows the manufacturers and stores to drive down the price of goods (when bought from the producer).
The main idea behind this was to drive down the value of goods for the consumer and to ensure the EU produces food locally, but it has created an ugly transfer of wealth where manufacturers and stores now earn more. Consumer barely sees the difference.
So most likely something should change for manufacture and vendors as well if the system was to be made fair.
Locking prices for manufacture and vendors is not a thing. Giving subsidies to them will stifle competition.
Agriculture subsidies do help producers compete with China, US and other outside markets, but at the cost of reward for labor.
I think the system is not oppressive, but it certainly is not fair. Issues crop up in the middle of the value chain and there are no easy solutions.
If farmers produce food by working lands they own, then they are not being exploited by land owners.
However, as you observe, under our currrent systems, the value they realize from their labor is determined by food prices, as resolved by markets through which food is commodified.
Businesses that exploit workers also participate in commodity food markets.
Thus, as long as food is produced by profiting from worker exploitation, and is exchanged through commodity markets, all food production and distribution is bound to the profit motive, and therefore subject to distortion away from satisfaction of human need for survival and flourishing.
I believe practices such as the one you describe, in principle may serve to mitigate some such distortions, and to advance the interests of the working class.
Unfortunately, EU states, as other states around the world, have now fallen under neoliberalism, which simply exacerbates the wealth transfer from workers to large owners that is already inevitable as a structural consequence of relations under capitalist production and distribution.
Now, you have not answered my question.
Is profit not antagonist to the values you espouse?
What is the full value of a workers labor?
The value of products realized at the point of sale, minus the costs of (non-labor) inputs and operating expenses, is the value generated by the labor of workers in a business.
If a business is privately owned for the profit of its owners, then the profit is a share of the value generated by the workers, but claimed by owners, who contribute no labor toward generating the value.
Suppose there is a a construction company that wins a million dollar contract to build parking lots. How should the owner compensate workers? What about subcontractors and suppliers?
I am not offering anyone business advice.
That’s a common issue with arguments like this: no plan for implementation.
In life, it’s easy to point out the problems. Much harder to develop solutions, even harder to implement them.
Don’t do what is easy, play on hard mode. Play to win
Your objection is dishonest.
I never expressed any intention to implement a construction company.
You asked how someone else ought to implement a construction company.
What answer might you expect, other than it’s not my business?
You see, business is private, not public. Your question is meaningless with respect to the context, of supporting the public interest.
Agriculture is also a private business. You’re making less sense now than you were a moment ago.
I am sorry you are struggling so much with your comprehension of concepts.
I will try to make the matter completely plain.
Agriculture is a practice for land utilization, involving labor, to produce food.
Business is a social structure, within which workers, through utilizing a productive asset claimed as the private property of the business, and through providing their labor to the business, create a product whose sale generates a profit for the business owner.
Agriculture may occur within the context of a private business, by utilizing lands claimed as its private property, to produce food for sale, through the labor provided by workers.
Accordingly, a private business may generate a profit by the sale of food, produced through utilizing lands claimed as its private property, and through the labor provided by workers.
Now, please pay very close attention.
Business may create a product not through utilizing land, and even may create a product that is not food.
Even more remarkably, agriculture may occur outside of private business, and may even occur utilizing lands not claimed as private property.
In summary, all of the following are true…
Hopefully, you are now beginning to understand the concepts that you previously have experienced as elusive and confounding.
If not, then I doubt anyone can help you further, except to suggest that you reread in a few days after letting your thoughts settle.
If you cannot respond to my explanation constructively, then please take your trolling elsewhere.