He burns calories tilling the soil, chasing animals and so on (cost), and gains calories when he eats (revenue). He must receive more calories from the food he eats than he burns in the process of hunting or farming, otherwise he will die. He needs some calorie surplus (profit) in order to survive.

"Profit is necessary to life (if I use a weird idiosyncratic definition of profit that has nothing to do with the one used by Marxists)"

Attempts to eliminate profit killed millions of people. Even today countries under similar regimes, such as North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba face extreme food shortages.

"Pay no attention to the US sanctions and embargos behind the curtain"

But profit that comes at the expense of other people is bad.

And capitalist profits by definition come at the expense of the worker whose surplus value they appropriate. Thank you and good night.

[–] 10TH_OF_SEPTEMBER_CALL@hexbear.net 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Profit is when you eat more calories than you spent walking to the supermarket

[–] BobDole@hexbear.net 1 points 1 day ago

…walking? You mean from my F-350 in the handicap spot up front (no placard or plate)?

[–] Beaver@hexbear.net 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

But profit that comes at the expense of other people is bad.

Even Profit's strongest warrior must meekly conceed that exploitation is bad in principle.

[–] lil_tank@hexbear.net 8 points 1 day ago

Strawman argument but there's no straw and there's no man

[–] chgxvjh@hexbear.net 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I think it's interesting how right wing thought has devolved. This text is quite a setback compared to profit/surplus value is necessary for social and technological development and therefore capitalism is the best system.

[–] booty@hexbear.net 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

He needs some calorie surplus (profit) in order to survive.

Aside from all the other reasons this is bullshit, this part specifically just... isn't true at all? Sure I guess you need a calorie surplus when you're young and growing, or when you're building muscle. But if you're like a 25 year old hunter-farmer lone wolf alpha male who don't need no society... you don't need a calorie surplus. A consistent calorie surplus would be bad. Every surplus calorie just gets stored as fat on your body which will weigh you down eventually.

(Of course some amount of that is good for surviving periods of food shortage but there's a point at which it becomes detrimental)

[–] 10TH_OF_SEPTEMBER_CALL@hexbear.net 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

you do need to ingest more calories than you spent hunting, you sustain your metabolism

But that have nothing to do with capitalism

it's bad enough we do need to labor to eat, but profit, in his stupid analogy, would be more like having worms in your stomach