I don't get this communism thing...

[hedonist]

Srsly, what's the point? Why do you want everyone to be economically equal? Where's the fun in that? What kind of society would it create? I mean don't you guys relish that special feeling of primal enjoyment in being fascetiously demeaning to your inferiors? :evil: Where is all that going to go once everyone is all square and even?

I fail to see the point of this entire enterprise. I mean, do you guys actually care if someone has more money than someone else? I certainly don't, and I think more don't than do overall.

My only explanation is that somehow you think you will be able to money out of it as a kleptocratic dictator or something after you are placed into a position of power. My advice is: don't count on it.

[Vendetta]

Or maybe you should remember that we're not in it for the money.

Hence, y'know, the whole anti-capitalism thing.

[BobKKKindle$]

Some of the most important figures in the history of politics, philosophy, science, and economics havve not recived any tangible monetary or material benefits for their contributions. The Reason being that the activities that define us as individuals and social beings - is not merely a means to achieve an end (such as earning a wage, as under Capitalism) but also an end unto itself - an expression of the desire of the individual to further the human understanding of the world - or for us - to strgugle against unfairness and exploitation.


I mean, do you guys actually care if someone has more money than someone else

In the United States, the top income quintile controls 48.6% of the total wealth. Capitalism is a system under which goods and services are produced according to the demand for them; and this profitability. When 'effective demand' (purchasing power) is concentrated in the hands of a small minority, goods and services will be produced to satisfy that effective demand - even if the demand is for goods and services that only benefit the minority and not the population as a whole. This is how I understand marx's exchange value and use value. So, yes, having income inequality is important and people do care when it means they cannot have acess to the most basic amenities -_-

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 09:04 AM
Srsly, what's the point? Why do you want everyone to be economically equal? Where's the fun in that?
Wheres the fun in being poor and being fucking stuck with it?


don't you guys relish that special feeling of primal enjoyment in being fascetiously demeaning to your inferiors?

You mean wankers like you? we'll put you in a cage.


:evil: Where is all that going to go once everyone is all square and even?

Oh please, people will still have societies, clubs, sports leagues, games, contests, that they can compete and win and hold "championship titles" and whatever. Failure however, wont mean you starve to death, and sucess wont mean you get other peoples means of survival. It'll be completely all for fun.


I fail to see the point of this entire enterprise. I mean, do you guys actually care if someone has more money than someone else? I certainly don't, and I think more don't than do overall.

That's because you live comfortably. In a yuppy bubble.


My only explanation is that somehow you think you will be able to money out of it

Well your explaination is based on the hypothosis "people only act on the desire to gain profit" which is wrong on a biblical scale. I would go as far as to say humans act in their own self interest they're somewhat selfish, which is why we advocate a system based on meeting humans needs and wants. And not the elites.

[hedonist]

Bobkindles:


So, yes, having income inequality is important and people do care when it means they cannot have acess to the most basic amenities
I suppose this is the purpose for communism then. To ensure access to basic amenities. On the other hand, a communist government is less likely to acheive this than a capitalist one. Look at where the starvation is. Look at where the shortages are. If you keep distributing stuff for free, you run out. You need increasingly high prices to prevent this.

Love Underground:

You mean wankers like you? we'll put you in a cage.

You'd put me in a cage would you? Wouldn't work. I'd bribe the jailers, bust out and laugh in your face. Then I'd put you in a cage, and charge $5 for people to line up and poke you with a stick. They actually did that a hundred years ago.


Wheres the fun in being poor and being fucking stuck with it?
Unless you're a retard or have horrendously low self-esteem no-one is stuck being poor. If you are one of these, I have no sympathy. In fact, I have no sympathy for any poor person. Let them be stuck with it. Poverty is what makes people strive for riches and perfection. End poverty and you end enterprise.

[BobKKKindle$]

If you keep distributing stuff for free, you run out

I am personally not a Communist, and so believe that it is the profit motive and private ownership of the means of production that is responsible for the injustice of capitalism, not a system of price signals or the concepts of supply and demand, so this argument, if it can be referred to as such, does not apply to me.

However, you have given no substantiation as to why this might be the case. The use of wages and money as a medium of exchange is only one possible answer to that most fundamental of economic questions 'How should we distribute commodities'. It is possible that there might be other, fairer ways of distribution that operate outside a system of prices and instead through, perhaps, a system of councils, or a system relying on the ability of the individual to take only what he needs to satisfy his own needs (otherwise known as communism)

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 01:15 PM

If you keep distributing stuff for free, you run out

It is possible that there might be other, fairer ways of distribution that operate outside a system of prices and instead through, perhaps, a system of councils, or a system relying on the ability of the individual to take only what he needs to satisfy his own needs (otherwise known as communism)
:D

First of all, the leftist faith in councils (i.e. consensus) is hilarious in its naivete.

Second of all, if I decide I NEED a V-8 4X4 Chevy Suburban to haul all the possessions I believe I NEED between my 12,000 square foot home (I NEED space for my 4 children) and my 4,000 square foot lake cabin (I NEED leisure), who tells me I don't? Why do they get to decide?

[Marx Lenin Stalin]

Needs consist of what people cannot do away with - decent housing, decent paying jobs, food, some income to live upon if they need it, free education, and such.

If you are so immature/idiotic that you don't know what someone's NEEDS are as opposed to just a bourgeois luxury then do not worry!

For that is what the people's government will be here for! :)

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Marx Lenin [email protected] 29 2006, 04:59 PM
Needs consist of what people cannot do away with - decent housing, decent paying jobs, food, some income to live upon if they need it, free education, and such.

If you are so immature/idiotic that you don't know what someone's NEEDS are as opposed to just a bourgeois luxury then do not worry!

So you will be deciding what people need then.

You sure are arrogant.


For that is what the people's government will be here for! :)

And the inevitable black market that will spring up.

:D

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 09:04 AM
Srsly, what's the point? Why do you want everyone to be economically equal? Where's the fun in that? What kind of society would it create? I mean don't you guys relish that special feeling of primal enjoyment in being fascetiously demeaning to your inferiors? :evil: Where is all that going to go once everyone is all square and even?

I fail to see the point of this entire enterprise. I mean, do you guys actually care if someone has more money than someone else? I certainly don't, and I think more don't than do overall.

My only explanation is that somehow you think you will be able to money out of it as a kleptocratic dictator or something after you are placed into a position of power. My advice is: don't count on it.
i care that some people have less than me. I care that some families can't get the proper health care that someone who has money can get.

you narrow minded fuck

[Taiga]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 09:26 PM
i care that some people have less than me. I care that some families can't get the proper health care that someone who has money can get.

Well, he doesn't. I bet he is happy when someone dies of hunger because it's one more proof that he is superoir to him. You know... this splendid feeling of being superior... There's much more fun than in seeing everybody fed and cared and educated.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Taiga+Sep 29 2006, 06:45 PM--> (Taiga @ Sep 29 2006, 06:45 PM)
[email protected] 29 2006, 09:26 PM
i care that some people have less than me. I care that some families can't get the proper health care that someone who has money can get.

Well, he doesn't. I bet he is happy when someone dies of hunger because it's one more proof that he is superoir to him. You know... this splendid feeling of being superior... There's much more fun than in seeing everybody fed and cared and educated. [/b]
Few people actually starve to death and those that do are victims not of capitalism but of their governments.

[pastradamus]

Good point Taiga

A humans vision, what he/she see's every day transmits to their brain and has a social effect upon them. Maybe if you try removing the sunglasses you wore all your life you would be able to notice that some people live hand to mouth and struggle to survive on a daily basis. Destroying This is a reward we socialist aim for. I have even spilled my own blood for this noble cause.

[pastradamus]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Sep 29 2006, 07:00 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Sep 29 2006, 07:00 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 06:45 PM

[email protected] 29 2006, 09:26 PM
i care that some people have less than me. I care that some families can't get the proper health care that someone who has money can get.

Well, he doesn't. I bet he is happy when someone dies of hunger because it's one more proof that he is superoir to him. You know... this splendid feeling of being superior... There's much more fun than in seeing everybody fed and cared and educated.
Few people actually starve to death and those that do are victims not of capitalism but of their governments. [/b]
Yes. Have you noticed that these goverments are being exploited by YOUR GOVERNMENT!. And that almost all of the poor african states are capitalist?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 07:07 PM
[And that almost all of the poor african states are capitalist?
Yes I have, but this is not capitalism's fault regardless of your belief that it is. It is a matter of political policy - partially on the part of the U.S. government but moreso of the governments of the countries to which you refer.

The United States is a capitalist society. Very, very few if any people here starve to death.

Of course the U.S. is not purely capitalist, and it shouldn't be. Our history indicates that the closer we are to pure capitalism, the worse off our citizens are. But, our mix of government involvement and provision of a social safety net, along with our capitalist economic system, has done us very well.

Which begs the question, if one capitalist society has little if any starvation while another has plenty of it, can you really blame the capitalism? Or, more realistically, do we need to look at other factors?

[pastradamus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 07:16 PM
Which begs the question, if one capitalist society has little if any starvation while another has plenty of it, can you really blame the capitalism? Or, more realistically, do we need to look at other factors?
Yes, yes you can. Take the case of Nigeria. An oil-rich, capatalist nation.

Nigeria has the biggest population in Africa with 1 in 6 Africans being Nigerian.

There is a highly unequal distribution of wealth in Nigeria with 66% of the population falling below the poverty line of $1 a day. This puts it among the 20 poorest countries in the world.

Understandably this rich-poor divide is a consequence of contributing factors but the main problem here in my opinion is the poor performance of capitalism. Had this wealth been distributed evenly, then Nigeria would be a beacon of light in a starving continent.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 07:52 PM
Yes, yes you can. Take the case of Nigeria. An oil-rich, capatalist nation.


No, no you can't.

If one example of your choosing proves your point then it logically follows that I may choose one example to make my point. So according to your faulty arguing style, I can simply claim the United States is capitalist and few people ever starve so that proves people don't starve in capitalist societies.

Which is absurd. Both when I do it and when you do it.

Which is why I don't do it.


Nigeria has the biggest population in Africa with 1 in 6 Africans being Nigerian.

There is a highly unequal distribution of wealth in Nigeria with 66% of the population falling below the poverty line of $1 a day. This puts it among the 20 poorest countries in the world.

Understandably this rich-poor divide is a consequence of contributing factors but the main problem here in my opinion is the poor performance of capitalism. Had this wealth been distributed evenly, then Nigeria would be a beacon of light in a starving continent.

Nigeria is in deep trouble because it is a colonial (political) creation that includes three very distinct ethnic groups, and because its political system has been corrupt for decades, and probably still is.

You should not have chosen Nigeria. I studied Nigeria in graduate school and had to try to write a new Constitution for it. It's a very, very dire situation that has nothing to do with capitalism. Look at Mauritius, also in Africa. It too has been capitalist for decades and has none of the problems of Nigeria.

Have a great weekend. Remember simple answers are rarely correct, as you now know.

[pastradamus]

No, no you can't.

If one example of your choosing proves your point then it logically follows that I may choose one example to make my point. So according to your faulty arguing style, I can simply claim the United States is capitalist and few people ever starve so that proves people don't starve in capitalist societies.

Which is absurd. Both when I do it and when you do it.

Which is why I don't do it.


What was that? Really? What a waste of time typing that tripe.

The amount of wealth generated by the US due to its resorces is why people rarely starve. But then again Cuba is under no starvation threat neither - A country with an embargo.




You should not have chosen Nigeria. I studied Nigeria in graduate school and had to try to write a new Constitution for it.

I chose it at the end of the day and perhaps someone with the 'prestige' of studying it in graduate school can enlighten me.



It's a very, very dire situation that has nothing to do with capitalism. Look at Mauritius, also in Africa. It too has been capitalist for decades and has none of the problems of Nigeria.

Mauritius is a very small country and not very hard to govern. Its economy is tourist reliant. Nigeria cant compete in this sector. It has the second highest GDP in africa........Surpassed only by equitorial guinea, another tiny country but this time its got oil instead of tourism.

The fact is that Nigeria's colonialism was a consequence of capitalism which promotes imperalism.




Have a great weekend. Remember simple answers are rarely correct, as you now know.

Like I spent all weekend answering that! haha. man you need some pussy.

[KC]

Well, he doesn't. I bet he is happy when someone dies of hunger because it's one more proof that he is superoir to him. You know... this splendid feeling of being superior... There's much more fun than in seeing everybody fed and cared and educated.


This is idiotic. Stop trying to paint the bourgeoisie as inhuman. They're human. Deal with it.



Few people actually starve to death and those that do are victims not of capitalism but of their governments.


Many people die of malnutrition. Happy now?



Yes I have, but this is not capitalism's fault regardless of your belief that it is. It is a matter of political policy - partially on the part of the U.S. government but moreso of the governments of the countries to which you refer.

Governmental structure/role/power/decisions and political policy are all based on the socio-economic system in which they exist.



The United States is a capitalist society. Very, very few if any people here starve to death.


No it isn't. The United States is a capitalist nation. Saying that it in itself is a society implies that it is self-sustaining and that if the rest of the world put an embargo on the United States, that it could continue to maintain itself while retaining the same system.

Capitalism is global. The society that capitalism created is global. 99.9% of nations are dependent upon other nations to maintain their standards of living, especially the United States, which is one of the largest importers in the world.

You can't just isolate the United States and say "look how well we're doing!" because the living standards of the United States are directly dependent upon the country's interactions with the rest of the world.



Of course the U.S. is not purely capitalist, and it shouldn't be.

We don't define capitalism based on governmental policies and trade regulations. We define capitalism based on relations between people and therefore on relations between classes. If you would like to debate with marxists about their conceptions of capitalism then you are going to have to use our definitions, otherwise this will degenerate into nothing more than a semantics battle. I certainly don't want that as it's unproductive and a complete waste of time (and I'm guessing you don't want that either). Here is a good definition of capitalism provided by marxists.org:


Capitalism

The socio-economic system where social relations are based on commodities for exchange, in particular private ownership of the means of production and on the exploitation of wage labour.

Wage labour is the labour process in capitalist society: the owners of the means of production (the bourgeoisie) buy the labour power of those who do not own the means of production (the proletariat), and use it to increase the value of their property (capital). In pre-capitalist societies, the labour of the producers was rendered to the ruling class by traditional obligations or sheer force, rather than as a “free” act of purchase and sale as in capitalist society.

Value is increased through the appropriation of surplus value from wage labour. In societies which produce beyond the necessary level of subsistence, there is a social surplus, i.e. people produce more than they need for immediate reproduction. In capitalism, surplus value is appropriated by the capitalist class by extending the working day beyond necessary labour time. That extra labour is used by the capitalist for profit; used in whatever ways they choose.

The main classes under capitalism are the proletariat (the sellers of labour power) and the bourgeoisie (the buyers of labour power). The value of every product is divided between wages and profit, and there is an irreconcilable class struggle over the division of this product.

Capitalism is one of a series of socio-economics systems, each of which are characterised by quite different class relations: tribal society, also referred to as “primitive communism” and feudalism. It is the breakdown of all traditional relationships, and the subordination of relations to the “cash nexus” which characterises capitalism. The transcendence of the class antgonisms of capitalism, replacing the domination of the market by planned, cooperative labour, leads to socialism and communism.

Historical Development: Capitalism develops through various stages. Since capital is both a pre-condition and outcome of capitalism, a period of primitive accumulation marks the beginning of capitalism; this may involve outright theft and plunder, and in particular the creation of a class of people who no longer own any means of production – a proletariat.

By freeing the labour process from traditional forms and expanding labour cooperation through world trade, capitalism initiates a rapid transformation in the labour process and promotes the development of science and technology. Meanwhile, religion and kinship ties are continuously undermined. Capital is built up in a few countries at the expense of other countries which are used as sources of cheap labour and raw materials.

The competition between millions of small-scale producers which was characteristic of the early days of capitalism, leads to the concentration of capital in the hands of just a few as a more efficient means of production. At a certain point (the beginning of the 20th-century), the entire globe had been divided up between a few great powers. Thus begins the final stage in the development of capitalism, imperialism, characterised by the domination of the banks, the formation of large multi-national corporations, by war and revolution.

The free market that had been envisioned by Adam Smith was shown impossible by the late 19th and early 20th century, when monopolies dominated nations causing massive Economic collapses in the 1890s, a world production crisis during World War I, and the worldwide depression in the 1930s. Thereafter national, and later international, regulation of the capitalist marketplace became necessary (SEC, International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, etc.); while the growth of militarization remains a necessity to expend excess production. For example, the United States having overspent the Soviet Union in militarization, in the last decade of the 20th century continued to create wars throughout the world – Panama, Iraq, Bosnia, etc. – unleashing double and triple the firepower in all of World War II. After the incredible expenditure of vast munitions and weapons (over $300 billion per year), the subjugated and destroyed nations are then offered contracts and infiltrated by capitalist business for the process of "rebuilding".

The Destruction of Capitalism: In capitalist society the working-class continues to grow, and ownership over the means of production continually dwindles into fewer and fewer hands. One example of this is the stock market, where the finance banks emphasize that "all workers" can own a piece of various companies. In fact, through offering "ownership" of these companies to more people, financial oligarchies are able to gain greater control over these companies by diluting the ownership amongst an unorganized group while also extracting capital from this large group for further investment. For example, a bank need only own 10 or 15 percent of a certain company to have an enormous controlling interest over that company, so long as the vast majority of stocks in that company are owned by thousands and tens of thousands of different people, people who do not have the time to attend shareholder meetings and are not united and unorganized on how to exert control over the company.

Furthermore in capitalist society, the value of labour increases while labourers continually receive a smaller portion of that value they create. The selling of labour itself is continually reduced from something that is sold on a monthly or yearly basis to something that is sold day by day, and hour by hour, piecemeal or in short term contracts. As a result, the income gap grows continually larger. For example in the United States, from 1988-1998, income for the poorest 20 percent of the population rose a meager $110 to $12,990. For the richest 20 percent it increased by $17,870 to $137,480. (Data according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute, checked with U.S. Census data; January, 1999).

Capitalist ideology attempts to refute Marxism on the basis that the biggest class in capitalist society is the "middle-class". This class conception however is based purely on economic wealth (two cars in the garage, an income of x amount of dollars, etc.) and not on that person's actual relations to the means of production (See definition on class). The enormous majority of the population in a capitalist society is proletarian – however through imperialism some highly specialized proletarians (from executive officers to autoworkers, information technology workers to industrial foremen, etc.) are paid very well (not by the full value of what they actually produce, but by a higher percentage of that value when compared to unskilled workers and workers in nations subjugated to imperialist exploitation).

In order for capitalism to function correctly, the petty-bourgeois class must be in existence. This is one of the great contradictions in capitalist society, because on the one hand while capitalist production continually pushes small-business people out of the market (for example, the owner of the general store, vegetable shop, small grocery store owner – all are wiped out by corporations who establish enormous shopping centers to meet a large variety of consumer needs, with products of higher quality at a cheaper price); while on the other hand capitalism cannot survive without a class of people establishing new businesses to fill new consumer needs; and from a very select few of those businesses to recruit new bourgeois, forming large corporations (in United States this is referred to as the "American dream").

The ultimate failure of capitalism is brought about by capitalist production itself – the further technology advances, the more expensive and powerful are the machines needed for production, while at the same time, as a result of technological advances, products produced by more efficient machines become cheaper and cheaper. This has the effect of firstly driving the petty-bourgeoisie into extinction (who cannot afford to constantly upgrade their productive forces, while their products continually become cheaper (the reason they are heavily subsidized by advanced capitalist governments); and further the creation of larger corporations, which in turn must not only shrink internally to maintain "efficiency", but must also merge with other companies, forming multinational conglomerates, etc. The further this process continues, production becomes increasingly centralized, and when controlled by the capitalist, the more oppressive and backward production becomes (Microsoft at the end of the 20th century). These technological advances will inevitably lead to either the common destruction of humanity (a third world war) or socialist revolution, a democratic society where the means of production and distribution will be controlled by the majority.

Further Reading: For a detailed description of the fundamentals and early development of capitalism see: Marx, Wage labour and Capital, and Capital Volume 1 & Volume 2 – on the Process of Production, Circulation and of Capital respectively), Capital Volume 3 on capitalist production in whole.

For a detailed description of the beginning of the later stage of development of capitalism, see: Lenin, Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism.

Emphasis mine. If you would like more information on the subject then I would be happy to provide you with some. I think that in order to understand where we're coming from you really need to read more about what we mean when we say things like capitalism.


But, our mix of government involvement and provision of a social safety net, along with our capitalist economic system, has done us very well.

Yeah, we're doing great and that's the only reason why we have such high standards of living. :rolleyes:

[RNK]

Maybe you haven't been informed, but the current state of the world is slowly but surely slipping into unrelenting chaos and violence and suffering. Your capitalist system is degrading and eroding all around you, but you are too ignorant to see it. Capitalism is failing, and there are only two ways to go from here -- into utter depravity the likes of which humanity has never seen, or into a society based on equality and universal respect for the rights of all to not be manipulated and used by others.

You choose which you want.

[Comeback Kid]

Nigeria is in deep trouble because it is a colonial (political) creation that includes three very distinct ethnic groups, and because its political system has been corrupt for decades, and probably still is.

Colonialism was fueled by the need for raw materials in Europe, because European capitalists throught it would be a grand idea if they had more shit then anyone else. Nice work kids.

Corruption is fueled by greed. What are these men greedy for? If you cant answer that question then you should go back to grade school.

[KC]

t wolves, could you respond to my post please?

[t_wolves_fan]

I am sorry I missed this.

How ironic that you have Billy Hall in your avatar. I live just a few miles from Miller Park.




Few people actually starve to death and those that do are victims not of capitalism but of their governments.


Many people die of malnutrition. Happy now?

Not in the United States and no, I am not happy about it when it occurs. Unfortunately many people around the world die because their government or warring militias steal food aid and use food as a weapon to pacify the local population.

There is also the matter of tarrifs and other trade practices that shaft farmers in poor countries. I do not support them. They are also inherently anti-capitalist in nature, because capitalism would dictate that supply be allowed to flow freely. Such policies prevent the good qualities of capitalism from doing what they are supposed to do, simply in the name of securing votes. Farm lobbies are a powerful thing.


Governmental structure/role/power/decisions and political policy are all based on the socio-economic system in which they exist.

Sure, but that does not guarantee outcome.


No it isn't. The United States is a capitalist nation. Saying that it in itself is a society implies that it is self-sustaining and that if the rest of the world put an embargo on the United States, that it could continue to maintain itself while retaining the same system.

Not really. Even in the unlikely event that the planet slit its own throat and put an embargo on the United States, the U.S. could still operate under a capitalist system. It would not work very well, but it could do so.



Capitalism is global. The society that capitalism created is global. 99.9% of nations are dependent upon other nations to maintain their standards of living, especially the United States, which is one of the largest importers in the world.

It is an international system but it does not involve the entire planet. North Korea and several other small, inconsequential nations don't participate. So what?

Yes, we depend on other nations. Other nations depend on us. While I am no fan of sweatshops, remember that before they were toiling on our sneakers and televisions those people were toiling in the fields and the hills. Unless they are compelled by law, and many of them are, to abandon their subsistence living in favor of the factory, the fact that they're choosing to engage in the capitalist system says it's fine by them.

That is how societies develop technologically. You do not go from agrarian subsistence farming and herding to building supercomputers and nuclear power plants. Technology and expertise are transferred through international trade and refined in new locations.



You can't just isolate the United States and say "look how well we're doing!" because the living standards of the United States are directly dependent upon the country's interactions with the rest of the world.

And how is the rest of the world doing? Would you like to ask the folks in India or China whether they're better off now than 50 years ago? How about Taiwan or the Phillipines or several other countries?

You may not like the answer you get.

The problem is you seem to think that other societies have to go straight from agrarian subsistence farming and famine directly to where we are at without going through the growing pains we went through.


Here is a good definition of capitalism provided by marxists.org:

I can tell you right now it's a biased and therefore flawed definition. I have time only to address the part you bolded:


Capitalism

The socio-economic system where social relations are based on commodities for exchange, in particular private ownership of the means of production and on the exploitation of wage labour.


Two problems:

Social relationships in capitalist societies are not definied strictly by the availability of commodities or ownership of the means of production. In fact I'd say the ownership of the means of production is easily one of the least important factors in social relationships. You have to add in ethnicity, race, gender, socio-economic status (some shop owners make less than salaried attorneys), religion, nationality, regional background, college alma mater, etc.

Second, "exploitation" of wage labor is not by definition bad. If I take a guy who had no job or was making minimum wage and give him a job making $15 an hour, he is better off, is he not? That's a yes or no question, and you know the answer to it.