The Offtopicgrad Soviet: A Place to Discuss All Things Red

[Rashiminos]

I suppose I should add on a little more to what I say originally. Something comes to mind: if a CEO is indeed as brilliant, hardworking and talented as he claims to be, then surely he or she could convince their workers to vote them back into office with the same level of pay.

That only works if either the CEO also has skill/talent in being persuasive, or the workers base their voting decisions on brilliance, hardwork, and talent. If the voters are preoccupied with other issues, then those attributes are selected against (since they become lower in priority). Of course, strict focus on those attributes is not necessarily optimal, either.

What I find particularly strange is this idea that socialism will lead to completely equal incomes. I could see this being the case in a system where there are no wages at all, but under market conditions, I think that is nonsensical. We can see this already: very few workers believe that every worker pitches in the same amount of worker. Slackers are routinely identified by their colleagues, as are those who put in 110%. Those who have worked at a company longer dislike the idea of being paid the same as someone who just joined. And certainly, while workers have their issues with those above them, I imagine most can still appreciate the different kettle of fish managing a whole enterprise is to working just one part of it (the same way that, in spite of how we may feel about a particular politician, we might not deny that his job is probably fairly difficult given he deals with community-wide issues we might not ever consider).

But I'm sure those same workers will, all this in mind, sincerely doubt someone is working hundreds of times as hard as them. A worker-elected CEO may just be able to pull in something as nice as (for example) 10x what the rank-and-file do, but I highly doubt we'll be seeing anymore of the current gap in pay. No worker is going to vote for millions of dollars in compensation for a handful when they themselves are unsure of paying their bills.

Compensation does not have to be derived linearly. Paying an employee 10% more income for 10% more work is not as motivational as paying an employee 25% more income for 10% more work. Employees have their own opinions regarding how much time they are willing to spend working, and linear wages are often not worth the bother. Salaries can also benefit productivity as more efficient employees will have more free time for the things they want to do.

I see the routine argument against socialism is that "not everyone wants to be equal." Even assuming this is true, however, I can't help but feel that many forms of socialism argue for equity moreso than complete equality. I can see why the desire to support social democracy would be strong, because it too is more interested in equity than equality, though it does not go far enough in ensuring that equity will be preserved.

The application of force by the state only goes so far. Democracy is specifically centered around keeping the state from devolving into tyranny, even if a change could in theory enhance equity (often it doesn't). Socialism can frequently err in attempting to make decisions on the governed's behalf.

A 'capitalist enterprise' not run for the benefit of capitalists ceases being a 'capitalist enterprise' in any meaningful sense of the term.

It doesn't. It's a question of numbers and functions. Individual capitalists find it easier to take initiative. Group capitalists take longer to make important decisions, but benefit from the more intensive deliberation. Whether it's one individuals personal wealth or a group's pooled wealth, money competes with money. Capitalist groups were enjoying quite a few successes before antitrust legislation became popular (collusion is a corrupt form of cooperation). Capitalist groups can also route around government obstructions (eg mafia, cartels).

This is just another way of putting the standard Marginal Theory of Labor Value, a "theory" which is simply an assumption (there is, naturally, ample evidence it is a completely incorrect assumption) but which forms a cornerstone of both modern economic theory and the cornerstone in the corresponding body of normative thought which upholds capitalism.
Capitalism is properly "paired with" forms of pre-democratic government like monarchy because it is a form of pre-democratic government like monarchy.

One is confusing the shape of the vessel with the resources that flow within it.

But actually there is no reason to believe that bodies of workers in democratic associations will not make sensible decisions, and as I've already pointed out, research and experience indicate that, given the right conditions, workers will make sensible decisions in running their companies.
Of course, your argument almost exactly parallels the arguments of anti-democratic conservatives who said that allowing the people to make poor decisions out of a misplaced sense of sympathy would cause everyone to suffer.

You're right, when confined to the right conditions. What happens when the wrong conditions are present? (This is the test question socialism keeps slipping on, despite frequent capitalist review of the same problem).

Spoiler :

On a more subtle note: Am I being anti-democracy or anti-ignorance? (or pro-competence, or ...)

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Oh yeah and Leninists don't?

No, we don't. Our political program derives from a materialist analysis of society. Political conclusions flow from present facts and realities; there's no room for romanticism and perfect wishes. We must dare to be as radical as reality itself.

This is what I'm all about: management by consent of the managed!



Yep, market socialism is not on most people's radar.

That's because market socialism isn't socialism and can't create communism. It can only slowly slide back into capitalism.

Socialism is just the expansion of democracy to encompass more of how society actually works.

No socialism is the resolution of the contradiction between the productive forces and productive relations of society. In other words, taking the products of socialized production (which capitalism is) and making those products socialized as well. That's quite impossible under capitalist economic relations.

What you market socialists fail to understand is that economic systems don't just produce, they reproduce. If you don't destroy the means of economic reproduction, then you can't destroy the system forever. Like failing to complete an antibiotic regimen, the infection will return. Markets are the means by which wealth is unequalized and private property is the means by which that division of wealth is maintained and passed to future generations. Both must be socialized along with production and distribution, if you are to actually destroy capitalism.

 

[Lexicus]

It doesn't. It's a question of numbers and functions. Individual capitalists find it easier to take initiative. Group capitalists take longer to make important decisions, but benefit from the more intensive deliberation. Whether it's one individuals personal wealth or a group's pooled wealth, money competes with money. Capitalist groups were enjoying quite a few successes before antitrust legislation became popular (collusion is a corrupt form of cooperation). Capitalist groups can also route around government obstructions (eg mafia, cartels).

I intuit from this we are working from different definitions of capitalist. Markets, competition, and so forth are not inherently capitalist in my view. Capitalist is a state of political economy in which the society is run for the benefit of capitalists.

One is confusing the shape of the vessel with the resources that flow within it.

I don't really know what this is supposed to mean.

You're right, when confined to the right conditions. What happens when the wrong conditions are present? (This is the test question socialism keeps slipping on, despite frequent capitalist review of the same problem).

What happens to conventionally-owned companies under the wrong conditions? They fail.

No, we don't. Our political program derives from a materialist analysis of society. Political conclusions flow from present facts and realities; there's no room for romanticism and perfect wishes. We must dare to be as radical as reality itself.

No room for romanticism, but plenty of room for killing millions in pursuit of utopian dreams. It'd be useful to know your attitude toward the USSR - either you disavow it, claim it wasn't a real example of whatever you believe in, or you say its crimes were necessary in the pursuit of the Glorious Utopia. In either case, really, you prove my point.

That's because market socialism isn't socialism and can't create communism. It can only slowly slide back into capitalism.

Who wants to create communism, anyway? And who really still believes in these cookie-cutter categories or the linear progression of history?

No socialism is the resolution of the contradiction between the productive forces and productive relations of society.

But don't you see, the 'resolution of contradiction' is impossible. It will never, ever happen because conflict will remain as long as human societies exist.
This is why Leninists and liberal market fundamentalists are so similar- each believes that, if only you carry out its utopian project in full, conflict will magically fall away! There will be no need for a state anymore!
In both cases, it is a dream.

What you market socialists fail to understand is that economic systems don't just produce, they reproduce. If you don't destroy the means of economic reproduction, then you can't destroy the system forever. Like failing to complete an antibiotic regimen, the infection will return. Markets are the means by which wealth is unequalized and private property is the means by which that division of wealth is maintained and passed to future generations. Both must be socialized along with production and distribution, if you are to actually destroy capitalism.

I guess this particular market socialist just doesn't share your ambitions. I regard it as basically impossible to completely 'destroy' what came before.

Also, I just don't believe it is necessarily true that markets are the means by which inequality is perpetuated- though I agree that private property generally poses a problem and as such I've pretty consistently argued for limitation of its scope.

 

[Rashiminos]

What you market socialists fail to understand is that economic systems don't just produce, they reproduce. If you don't destroy the means of economic reproduction, then you can't destroy the system forever. Like failing to complete an antibiotic regimen, the infection will return. Markets are the means by which wealth is unequalized and private property is the means by which that division of wealth is maintained and passed to future generations. Both must be socialized along with production and distribution, if you are to actually destroy capitalism.

Wouldn't consume be a more apt term, as far as it goes?

Spoiler :

I struggle to see that goal being reached, but maybe it's because I have my capitalist blinders on again.

Spoiler :

Okay, maybe it's not my capitalist blinders in question.

Spoiler :

Maybe there's a creation(inequality)/destruction/(equality) relation going on...

I intuit from this we are working from different definitions of capitalist. Markets, competition, and so forth are not inherently capitalist in my view. Capitalist is a state of political economy in which the society is run for the benefit of capitalists.

Yes, we are. Capitalists are not a fixed class as it's determined primarily by who has surpluses of various resources (or services), and the surpluses keep shifting around. Markets (structures), competition (improvement), and so forth facilitate the exchange of these resources so that needs/wants/public welfare/etc (profit can have a number of different meanings) can be met. The rub is, we don't know in advance what needs/wants/public goods will need to fulfilled or where, so that's left up to the market participants to decide. Government that obstructs rather than assists capitalism diminishes profits of all kinds.

I don't really know what this is supposed to mean.

To the degree that a government and/or society is malformed, capitalism will be purposed into pursuing malicious ends. In some aspects, capitalism is a fluid that takes the shape of its container. Better yet, capitalism pumps the fluid (capital) through the container. Does that remind you of anything?

What happens to conventionally-owned companies under the wrong conditions? They fail.

This is not unexpected. Companies that do not adapt to changing conditions probably should fail and be replaced (unless there's no longer a need).

This is why Leninists and liberal market fundamentalists are so similar- each believes that, if only you carry out its utopian project in full, conflict will magically fall away! There will be no need for a state anymore!
In both cases, it is a dream.

I'm not sure liberal market fundamentalists are so optimistic (they may even be cynical). Wherever there is a scarcity, there exists the possibility of conflict (although perhaps violent conflict can be avoided by resolving the scarcity).

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

No room for romanticism, but plenty of room for killing millions in pursuit of utopian dreams.

22,000 children starve to death under capitalism every day. Don't you dare invoke body counts as an argument against socialism.

It'd be useful to know your attitude toward the USSR - either you disavow it, claim it wasn't a real example of whatever you believe in, or you say its crimes were necessary in the pursuit of the Glorious Utopia. In either case, really, you prove my point.

"Crimes"

Yeah okay whatever.

Pursuing something better than this isn't being Utopian. We aren't imagining a perfect world and then bending reality to meet that ideal. We are working with what we have, one step at a time. Reality is necessarily imperfect.

But no really, we're the Utopians for that.

Who wants to create communism, anyway? And who really still believes in these cookie-cutter categories or the linear progression of history?

It's got nothing to do with what people want in some abstract idealistic sense. They want to be free of capitalism's oppression, and their struggle against, to free themselves of it, is what creates socialism and communism.

By the way, last time I checked time flows in a linear direction. That means that history is linear too. Unless you think we are literally repeating the same time periods over and over.

But don't you see, the 'resolution of contradiction' is impossible. It will never, ever happen because conflict will remain as long as human societies exist.
This is why Leninists and liberal market fundamentalists are so similar- each believes that, if only you carry out its utopian project in full, conflict will magically fall away! There will be no need for a state anymore!
In both cases, it is a dream.

Do you even know what these words mean? Contradictions resolve, and they create new contradictions. This is literally what drives the universe: the conflict and resolution of internally-driven contradictions. All matter is in motion, and our consciousness and our societies are products of our material interactions with other things. That means that this contradiction-resolution-contradiction dialectic affects them and us too, and drives the changes in society and in ourselves as it does the rest of the universe.

I guess this particular market socialist just doesn't share your ambitions. I regard it as basically impossible to completely 'destroy' what came before.

Well capitalism has only existed a couple hundred years, and it absolutely destroyed what came before, so how does your ridiculous metaphysics account for that?

Also, I just don't believe it is necessarily true that markets are the means by which inequality is perpetuated- though I agree that private property generally poses a problem and as such I've pretty consistently argued for limitation of its scope.

That's cool. Marx proved you wrong. I have to wonder how much of this "socialism" thing you really even believe in, and why.

 

[Daw]

Who wants to create communism, anyway?

I wouldn't mind, for one. Though I guess definitions must be talked first, as I believe different people understand the word differently.

 

[Rashiminos]

22,000 children starve to death under capitalism every day. Don't you dare invoke body counts as an argument against socialism.

Waiting for Lexicus to respond on this one.

By the way, last time I checked time flows in a linear direction. That means that history is linear too. Unless you think we are literally repeating the same time periods over and over.

Even with linear time there are repetitions. Days, weeks, seasons, years, business cycles, etc. Some cycles are found in nature, and others in capitalist systems. Maybe socialism/communism has its own place in the cycles instead of fancifully breaking them.

Well capitalism has only existed a couple hundred years, and it absolutely destroyed what came before, so how does your ridiculous metaphysics account for that?

So you're saying some species of economies went extinct...

 

[Namor]

"Crimes"

Yeah okay whatever.

Pursuing something better than this isn't being Utopian. We aren't imagining a perfect world and then bending reality to meet that ideal. We are working with what we have, one step at a time. Reality is necessarily imperfect.

But no really, we're the Utopians for that.

Looking over this whole thread for some time, I don't think you have ever said a single negative word about any Bolshevik or Communist leader Wiz.

Now I know the Bolshevik policy was never publicly dissent or criticize, but I have to assume part of the purpose of debating in this thread is to persuade people correct?

If you are never willing to give us the breakdown on the pros and cons of different policies and historical events, then you aren't coming across as a really passionate guy who strongly believes in what he does based on a thorough reading of history, you just come across like an ideologue who will never convince anyone who isn't already fully supportive of the program.

 

[Hygro]

Waiting for Lexicus to respond on this one.

Whenever you look into that statement it loses its efficacy.


Pre-capitalism: people contend with starvation all the time, everywhere.
Capitalism: lots and lots of new people supported, total numbers of starving go up, proportion go down
Capitalism after maturity: even more people supported, population is huge, total numbers of people starving goes down, proportion goes way down.

"But those are still people!" yeah, it's f'd. But the system, i.e. we the people with our newfound, first-time-in-history abundance, are solving the problem.

So you have a problem capitalism didn't cause (starvation) but has been solving, being bandied as an example of the failure of it as a system, and why it must be violently replaced.

 

[Daw]

So you have a problem capitalism didn't cause (starvation) but has been solving

While capitalism didn't cause starvation, it's been solving it locally by exporting it elsewhere. First within the society (from "upper" classes to "lower" classes) then to other societies (how many worlds are there? The first, the second, the third - right?).

The long term problem with this solution is that we live on a ball and anything exported doesn't disappear from it.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Even with linear time there are repetitions. Days, weeks, seasons, years, business cycles, etc. Some cycles are found in nature, and others in capitalist systems. Maybe socialism/communism has its own place in the cycles instead of fancifully breaking them.

But they don't *literally* repeat. You don't have the exact same day, month, season, as before.

Looking over this whole thread for some time, I don't think you have ever said a single negative word about any Bolshevik or Communist leader Wiz.

Now I know the Bolshevik policy was never publicly dissent or criticize, but I have to assume part of the purpose of debating in this thread is to persuade people correct?

If you are never willing to give us the breakdown on the pros and cons of different policies and historical events, then you aren't coming across as a really passionate guy who strongly believes in what he does based on a thorough reading of history, you just come across like an ideologue who will never convince anyone who isn't already fully supportive of the program.

What exactly are you looking for? I've talked a lot about this stuff elsewhere, especially in Ask A Red. Either look there, or ask the question here.

Whenever you look into that statement it loses its efficacy.


Pre-capitalism: people contend with starvation all the time, everywhere.
Capitalism: lots and lots of new people supported, total numbers of starving go up, proportion go down
Capitalism after maturity: even more people supported, population is huge, total numbers of people starving goes down, proportion goes way down.

"But those are still people!" yeah, it's f'd. But the system, i.e. we the people with our newfound, first-time-in-history abundance, are solving the problem.

So you have a problem capitalism didn't cause (starvation) but has been solving, being bandied as an example of the failure of it as a system, and why it must be violently replaced.

Capitalism isn't solving starvation it's perpetuating it. The food exists, it's not profitable to give it away to the hungry though.

If you can physically provide things, but can't politically do so, then the politics is a problem.

Guess what the root of the political system is? The economic system. That's what meant when I said this before:

"socialism is the resolution of the contradiction between the productive forces and productive relations of society. In other words, taking the products of socialized production (which capitalism is) and making those products socialized as well. That's quite impossible under capitalist economic relations."

 

[Lexicus]

Yes, we are. Capitalists are not a fixed class as it's determined primarily by who has surpluses of various resources (or services), and the surpluses keep shifting around. Markets (structures), competition (improvement), and so forth facilitate the exchange of these resources so that needs/wants/public welfare/etc (profit can have a number of different meanings) can be met. The rub is, we don't know in advance what needs/wants/public goods will need to fulfilled or where, so that's left up to the market participants to decide. Government that obstructs rather than assists capitalism diminishes profits of all kinds.

Well, it's certainly true that capitalists are not a fixed class - but that doesn't mean we can't talk about capitalists as an abstraction.
Now, it's pretty clear to me that from the very beginning capitalism has been a state-sponsored project. As Karl Polanyi put it, laissez-faire was planned.
There is not one "capitalism" that would happen "naturally" without the state to interfere. Capitalism is something in which the state is inextricably bound up. Now, the 'outsourcing' of governance from the state to private bodies may or may not be good. That is a question that can only be answered by actually looking at how things work.

To the degree that a government and/or society is malformed, capitalism will be purposed into pursuing malicious ends. In some aspects, capitalism is a fluid that takes the shape of its container. Better yet, capitalism pumps the fluid (capital) through the container. Does that remind you of anything?

"Malformed" relative to what?

I'm not sure liberal market fundamentalists are so optimistic (they may even be cynical). Wherever there is a scarcity, there exists the possibility of conflict (although perhaps violent conflict can be avoided by resolving the scarcity).

Liberal market fundamentalists will tell you that if only all human activity in the entire world was one big market there would never be conflict again.

22,000 children starve to death under capitalism every day. Don't you dare invoke body counts as an argument against socialism.

Oh come on now.
I'm not even including people who died prematurely from things other than state violence in the death toll of millions. If you want to add all that then I have no doubt whatsoever that a proportionally greater number of people (including children) died in the collection of countries under Leninist regimes than die today in the world.

"Crimes"

Yeah okay whatever.

Pursuing something better than this isn't being Utopian. We aren't imagining a perfect world and then bending reality to meet that ideal. We are working with what we have, one step at a time. Reality is necessarily imperfect.

But no really, we're the Utopians for that.

No, if you note I say the market fundamentalists are utopians as well.
But if your idea of "something better than this" where this is Western capitalism is the Soviet Union, then yes, I think it's fair to say you're a utopian who doesn't care what crimes are committed in the pursuit of your utopia.

It's got nothing to do with what people want in some abstract idealistic sense. They want to be free of capitalism's oppression, and their struggle against, to free themselves of it, is what creates socialism and communism.

This is no different than saying that people's quest for spiritual enlightenment will necessary lead them to accept Jesus as the savior. The truth is that people's desire to be free of capitalism creates all kinds of wacky things including all kinds of retreats into patriarchal lunacy, fascism, "human resources management," and so on.
Also this wasn't a literal question.

By the way, last time I checked time flows in a linear direction. That means that history is linear too. Unless you think we are literally repeating the same time periods over and over.

Is it actually true that time "flows in a linear direction"? Certainly humans seem to have an idea of linear time, where sometimes the length of the time is infinite and in others it is a line segment. But if all we have is perception, we are also aware of examples in which time is not considered to travel in a line but in a circle.
But anyway that has nothing to do with the question of whether history flows in a linear direction. I think it's a big leap to say that history "is" a linear progression of events. History is best seen as a collection of perspectives.

Do you even know what these words mean? Contradictions resolve, and they create new contradictions. This is literally what drives the universe: the conflict and resolution of internally-driven contradictions. All matter is in motion, and our consciousness and our societies are products of our material interactions with other things. That means that this contradiction-resolution-contradiction dialectic affects them and us too, and drives the changes in society and in ourselves as it does the rest of the universe.

Yes, I'm somewhat familiar with Hegelian and Marxist dialectics. The fact that contradictions create new contradictions means contradictions can never be done away with, though I think it's correct that a more socialist society will have to deal with slightly different contradictions to a capitalist one.

Well capitalism has only existed a couple hundred years, and it absolutely destroyed what came before, so how does your ridiculous metaphysics account for that?

Of course capitalism didn't 'absolutely destroy' what came before. As we all know perfectly well plenty of pre-capitalist stuff has survived into the capitalist age, like religion, racism, patriarchy, etc.
Also, hey, I remember arguing capitalism only existed for a couple of hundred years (came about in 19th century England) and being told by a certain someone that this meant I had no idea what capitalism even was

That's cool. Marx proved you wrong. I have to wonder how much of this "socialism" thing you really even believe in, and why.

Ugh. See, Marx didn't "prove" anything, he just came up with a new way of looking at things, imo some of which is pretty cool and useful and some of which is so much 19th-century nonsense. That applies to your dialectics, too: it's a tool, stop acting as though it's something that's been 'proven' and that the rest of us are stupid because we just don't get it!

So you're saying some species of economies went extinct...

More accurately, they were (partially) exterminated by another type.

Capitalism isn't solving starvation it's perpetuating it. The food exists, it's not profitable to give it away to the hungry though.

Correct. But it's inaccurate to say that capitalism is 'solving' the problem. Capitalism has given us the means to solve the problem, with socialism - something, finally, Cheezy the Wiz and I agree on.

 

[Hygro]

While capitalism didn't cause starvation, it's been solving it locally by exporting it elsewhere. First within the society (from "upper" classes to "lower" classes) then to other societies (how many worlds are there? The first, the second, the third - right?).

The long term problem with this solution is that we live on a ball and anything exported doesn't disappear from it.

Ok but back to reality we are feeding more people than ever, both in absolute numbers and as a proportion of total people, with no end to that trend in sight. It's not being solved by making more people starve because that's a mathematical contradiction.

Capitalism isn't solving starvation it's perpetuating it. The food exists, it's not profitable to give it away to the hungry though.

Translation of "perpetuating": solving slower than immediately.

There has been, to date, only this reality: humans always knew starvation and "capitalism" has been the only system to progressively end the threat of starvation for many, now most, and trend-lining to all.

 

[Lexicus]

Translation of "perpetuating": solving slower than immediately.

Well, I'd say "yes" here. Because it could be immediately solved through socialism, easily enough. It's not profitable to feed the hungry, is the problem...

 

[Rashiminos]

Well, I'd say "yes" here. Because it could be immediately solved through socialism, easily enough. It's not profitable to feed the hungry, is the problem...

Two immediate concerns:

1) If feeding starving mouths with food at a loss will lead to more starving mouths, can you increase food production to keep up with starving mouth production indefinitely?

2) If feeding another animal could be done at a profit (or with less loss), are we morally compelled to feed those starving mouths anyway?

 

[Lexicus]

1) If feeding starving mouths with food at a loss will lead to more starving mouths, can you increase food production to keep up with starving mouth production indefinitely?

Clearly, it does not follow that feeding starving mouths with food at a loss will lead to more starving mouths.

2) If feeding another animal could be done at a profit (or with less loss), are we morally compelled to feed those starving mouths anyway?

Opinions differ, but I certainly think so.

 

[Rashiminos]

Clearly, it does not follow that feeding starving mouths with food at a loss will lead to more starving mouths.

Did you have a particular halting point in mind, or do the parents whose needs (like food) are now being politically subsidized just stop having sex and babies of their own accord?

(Most biological organisms expand in population when they meet with abundant resources, and stop/die-off when they exceed them.)

An anthropocentric morality also offloads starvation onto other animals humans might otherwise be inclined to feed.

 

[Ajidica]

Capitalism isn't solving starvation it's perpetuating it. The food exists, it's not profitable to give it away to the hungry though.

If I had a choice to live as Bob the Peasant in Bohemia 1640 or Bob the Minimum Wage Worker in Alabama 2016, I know which one I'm choosing.
Heck, I would be down with being Bob the Copper Miner in Zambia 2016 over Bob the Peasant.

 

[REDY]

Sounds like Holodomor pun.

 

[Hygro]

Well, I'd say "yes" here. Because it could be immediately solved through socialism, easily enough. It's not profitable to feed the hungry, is the problem...

That's some holy smokes handwaving with "easily enough". Humanity lucked onto a system that gave us enough abundance to even have the problem of insufficient distribution. That system works exceedingly well. The previous attempts resulted in a lack of abundance and a common threat of starvation. "Socialism" is one hell of a gambit given that we don't even know what socialism is. "That's for the future people to figure out". Cool, I'll stick to what's working: more and more people getting fed every year.


It is profitable to feed the hungry, because everyone's hungry and food is profitable. It's not profitable to feed all of the hungry, yet, but that's not the fault of the people already feeding everyone else.

If you think otherwise, you should grow and distribute some food... right?