It doesn't have to be repetitive, or an imbalance of power. Simply trying to hurt someone's feelings for no reason would still be bullying. And i can't think of any other reason to comment negatively on a stranger's appearance to their face.
"My my, you have such wonky teeth!"
That would upset me, no matter who said it or how often.
Is it so hard to just not bully people? You don't have to agree, you just have to not say anything. You're the one dying on a hill, here.
If someone thinks that they are respecting themselves by willfully making decisions that they know are terrible for their health
I'm gonna need you to point out someone saying this before I take this claim seriously.
I know I have plenty of personal flaws, but I’m willing to take criticism of them.
Unprompted criticism of your body is just bullying. Accepting that requires a lack of self respect.
I’m not going to expect respect for doing fuck all about my personal problems and I don’t think anyone else should.
You're dragging the goalposts around and humping them, at this point. I didn't say "respect for doing nothing." Just... respect. The basic respect a human deserves for being human. Not getting on your knees, calling them lord, and complimenting their choices of fatty food. Just the bare minimum of not bullying them. Is that so hard?
I respect people that put in hard work and effort towards achieving their goals
Okay? But not every action is one to be judged on that criteria. Not everything is done to meet a goal. Just walking through town isn't one of those things.
I don’t respect pity parties.
Who's asking you to? Where's the pity? Where's the party?
why I should respect people that don’t respect themselves
Source for the lack of self respect? Or is that just your... opinion?
I’d expect people to say “my god, that’s a big fat arse!”.
Honestly, that sounds like no self respect to me. But what do I know?
Respect is something you earn, not something you simply expect.
Nope, expertise is something you earn. Respect should be expected.
And that makes you a dick.
Well the labour theory of value is where ‘surplus value’ comes from and is the theoretical underpinning of a lot of your argument.
LTV attacks pricing. Surplus value attacks wages. These are different discussions, dude.
Maybe we were on different sides of the planet or didn’t enjoy working together for many reasons.
You just keep having to fudge this hypothetical to make it make sense, eh?
This was a hypothetical scenario to demonstrate that in this specific scenario the excess profits were the result of deploying capital.
Bruh. Workers working by themselves to earn money for themselves isn't capitalist exploitation. Who is being employed, here? Wtf are you saying? This isn't wage labour.
Even in communist societies part of the output that is generated is not wholly due to labour but due to the allocation of capital by the communist regime.
If there is capital, it isn't communism. If there is a regime, it isn't communism. Please learn what communism is.
For example in the USSR
This is just too perfect.
Not communism.
the mechanization of labour resulted in standard of living increases because labour without capital is of very low value.
Labour without use is of no value. Did you not know that, and yet you have been talking about the LTV?
Are you about to make a "mud pie" argument?
Capital without labour is also of very low value.
Obviously. It is labour that creates value.
A factory without workers would not work very well at all either.
It wouldn't work whatsoever.
It’s the combined utilization of all the factors of production (Total factor productivity) that determines how much income can be generated in the economy.
Don't move the goalposts. I thought we were discussing value, not income?
Do you not know the difference? Is that why you think LTV is relevant to wages, rather than products?
The larger the TFP the higher the wages.
This is not a 1:1 correlation. The wages are determined by the whims of the owner, market forces, and any laws regarding minimums, overtime etc, not any rational calculation.
Economies with free markets have higher total favor productivity as the individual production decisions are dispersed among many business owners and workers rather than centralized in the hands of a bureaucratic elite.
Decisions in fact are managed by a bureaucratic elite. Capitalists. And productivity is a misleading figure, as the vast majority of the wealth created by it is siphoned by those very same capitalists.
I didn't say anything about labour theory of value. That's a whole other discussion. And why in that scenario did we not just work together? Why compete?
That's less than the 100% they deserve for doing 100% of the work.
Please just acknowledge the fact that it's mathematically impossible for a wage worker to actually receive what they made. The owner has to pay themselves, after all...
How could you misconstrue their words that way?
Please explain instead of posting vague virtue signalling bullshit.
Commit to your belief and state it, if you really believe it.
All I'm seeing here is a coward too scared to say what they think.
I feel like you're missing the point on purpose.
The workers do the work, yet the owner is the one who gets the money.
Why?
Of course the wealthiest countries have free markets. Why would that be a coincidence? It's exactly the mechanism I described, but on a global stage. Wealthy people exploit the poorer to become wealthier. Wealthy countries exploit poorer countries to become even wealthier.
This is a cycle that will only end with one person becoming the owner of everything, or revolution to end it.
Fuck your judgemental attitude.