the employer offers a voluntary alternative to inevitable starvation

It isn't the question of working, it s the question of being subject to somebody else's expoloitation

as workers do not get the value of their labor

A choice having consequence does not make it not a choice. It isn't exploitation

Yes it is

Yes they do, they get what they voluntarily agreed was their labor's value

But they do not have a choice

they must sell themselves to a capitalist

Yes they do

They can choose to face the consequences of refusing to contribute to something

That is not much choice, be exploited here or here. Talk to anybody who actually works because you clearly don't, nobody fucking likes their job

@Apophis People want to contribute something they actually want to it isn't about being lazy you retard

*I can't actually disprove so I throw ad hominems and non-cited, false consensus anecdotes*

I just did

I said people must sell themselves to a capitalist. They are subject to them, that is not a free choice

Capitalists need to make a profit

And as such they need to pay their workers less than their value, that is exploitation

Capital is the measure of contribution to society. If one does not contribute, then they should not freely recieve the property of those who do

Smh, but they must contribute to a capitalist, somebody profiting off their labor.

@Apophis join vc of this server you have so much misconceptions I cannot type this

https://discord.gg/hxSVtxV

Yes, and capitalists make their money providing goods and services to those who need or want them

I don't *do* voice chat

Than we are done here

Fine.

@Apophis Get a job please.

Don't critisise people who contribute when you yourself do not

That's not how leftists define a capitalist. Which is fine.

Maybe ask around for some books

Or something

Right, it's not like I work to provide the internet I'm talking to you with @BoleslawBierutLover. Quit your ad hominem bs

>Capital is the measure of contribution to society.
What about volunteering or unpaid work? It is a bit cynical to say all contributions are reducible to creation of capital. It is not mandatory and when someone else takes the credit for you work, that's exploitation also.

Alright, you can choose not to accept capital for work. As a proponent of voluntary charity, I'll concede that, but in general that claim stands. They've contributed labor, or goods, or whatever it may be, and that causes them to get capital

hence why those the consumer favors get more

So it is possible to do unpaid work. There is not a necessary relationship between work and capital. Therefore your statement that capital is a measure of contribution is arbitrary and assumes something that is not inherent in the nature of labour. Capital is optional result of labour, among many things. You are putting too much weight on the assumption that all society ought to be run this way. This is called ideological bias.

there is a relationship between work and capital, if some wish to not take any form of capital for their work that's fine, I've nothing against that. But people are generally compelled to make a profit, and it's through labor, be that as a business owner or as an employee of a business that satisfies the consumer, that that capital is made. Therefore, while work can be done without making capital, capital cannot be made without doing work.

Are investments considered work?

Yes

That's kind of what investing is

So the act of buying and selling is considered work, probably the minimal kind. Should you get paid according to the amount of work?

You should get paid based on voluntary agreement as to what the labor or exhange is worth. If the investor voluntarily agrees with the investee that he should get X return on profits, and both parties are okay with that, then X return of profits would be the value of the investor's contribution