How do you deal with classcucks and their vapid arguments? Please, I'm starting to go insane

I drink a lot and ignore them.

Ask them how the business owner got the capital to begin with.

everyone risks under capitalism. sure, worker doesn't risk as much money, but risks his life. Porky risk much more money, but he risks just his comfort.

The capitalist is gambling with your life. If he fails he loses money, you lose your livelihood.

In fact in late stage capitalism the only ones who can actually lose money are the banks. If you're a capitalist and you're bankrupt just file for bankruptcy and the bank will take away the stuff you bought with their money.

you lost

The business owner's choices have a direct impact on the lives of their workers, which the workers have no ability to consent to. The cumulative risk of the employees and their families is greater than the risk of the business owner and his family.

What the fuck is this garbage?

In 2000 30% of people lived in extreme party but just 15 years later it dropped to 10%?

...

...

...

Yeah, business owners, who are likely to have insurance, government subsidies and wealth are putting more on the line than the worker.

I mean geeze, if you're a worker you have it easy. If you lose your job, all that happens is:

See! It's easy! Bill Gates is putting it all on the line!

Because capitalism is a top-down system, it requires the ownership of private property, and those at the bottom are required to be reliant on those who own property.

That literally is not a fact, it is a projection of data.

These are not even arguments that are pro-capitalism or anti-socialism.
Do socialist nations not have guaranteed housing, education, high literacy rates, high vaccination rates and better healthcare? See Cuba, USSR, Yugoslavia.

I have a better idea. We could write into our constitution "Our country is heaven on Earth.". I'm sure it would make it true, as all that is needed is a decree.

Learn the basics of Marxism. None of this affects what I've said. These graphs compare to basically the feudal era.

...

See picture.

did u kno
capitalism ingreased vaccination by 86% bercent compared to b4 vaccines existed???
makes u dink :DDD

really gets the noggin joggin

You're going to predict for the 99th time in 2 centuries that we are finally approaching the late stages of capitalism and that this is crisis of all crisis?

2+2=4

What…? What does this have to do with my reply?

Capitalism made your iPhone!!!!!!

very, very old meme
youtube.com/watch?v=R5Gppi-O3a8

You guys want to go back to the stone age.

so you must be another one who thinks that the "benefits" of capitalism are solely due to technology

Marx quite liked capitalism, as it was a great step up from feudalism.

The world getting better is a result of leaving feudalism. Socialism is the aftermath of capitalism, socialists do not want to end productivity and technological progress, they want to further it by removing the profit motive and artificial scarcity caused by free markets.

youtube.com/watch?v=W6QAqU2KpaY

Try again classcuck. Your argument can be used to justify any system. What matters for us is economic freedom of the individual and worker-something that capitalism continues to undermine.

Pure damage control.

I think you're severely misunderstanding what I said. is basically what I was saying.

So after all you guys were predicting we are reaching the late stages of capitalism.

The profit motive is key for efficiency. It imposes a top down pressure for there to be no waste. It is the reason why private firms with major shareholders work better than those with dispersed ownership, and public firms. If you can achieve this with workers ownership, fine. You are free to try.

It is better to have a market where firms have some market power than to have no market at all.

pick one

I didn't post that one. I copied it. I am the guy who posted pic related graphs, though, to which nobody replied.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA PICS RELATED

Also: jacobinmag.com/2017/03/food-production-hunger-waste-agriculture-commodity-capitalism/

Please tell me this is bait.

GPS, Linux, LCD screens, RADAR, insulin etc. were all developed WITHOUT the profit motive.

Most great technological innovation comes from the public sector. The private sector acts in its own rational self interest - to make money.

See pic for an example. R&D for most large companies is actually LOWER than the money spend on sales.

Let's think about that for a moment - money spent on sales. What is the point of sales? To distribute product and continue development. Under a market economy, distribution of medicine is just another commodity.

Think about that. $27 billion dollars to distribute medicine that people need to live. What is the point? Why do we need all this wastage? What value do salesmen really add to society? Why cannot we just allow workers to produce what is needed, when it is needed, and distribute it to whom needs it? Market economies are inherently wasteful.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/11/big-pharmaceutical-companies-are-spending-far-more-on-marketing-than-research/

I dunno a lot of classcucks can be found in work, school, even in the home environment, places where one might be spend an inordinate amount of time with such a person.

As for whether you need a lot of time to convert somebody? I suppose that might be true in the majority of cases. But just one memorable conversation can plant a seed that could grow into something.

You're so sure of yourself it is almost sad. Pride indeed is the greatest human sin.

The top-down pressure brought about by the profit motive means that, if there is an employee or some process within a firm not behaving in a way that is most valuable towards client, there will be an incentive to correct it. This is why you are much more likely to be well treated and to see your problems being solved faster when you're dealing with private firms than when you're dealing with state departments, for instance. And note I'm making a statistical argument here.

When you don't have this pressure, you have something similar to what happened in Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, where in union magazines you had articles after articles decrying workers for not contributing to the common good, for being free riders. They set up a system so inefficient that people were taking advantage of it, and there was nothing that could be done within it. So they did everything that was in their power: complaining.

Capitalism is founded upon the notion that to get something valuable from others, you need to provide value yourself to other people. And this, giving nothing to those who don't contribute, is the disciplinary measure it introduces against free riders. It's a giant system replacing the reputation mechanism we used to work with in hunter-gatherer societies (and still work with in small teams or within our families), where we could keep track what everybody around us was doing. The relative favors, i.e. who owes what to whom, are not set by tacit agreement but by money, which is necessary as to keep disputes about these rights and obligations to a minimum.

And, fundamentally, against the point being brought about in this video , the fact the system is able to perpetuate itself is an argument in favor of that system. Only then can humans fulfil their nature and be truly free as social stability means the absence of unpredictably bad outcomes caused by other people. I know in the video he talks about improving living standards but the sleight of hand he uses to equate capitalism to slavery can be used against stability to. The point is that there several critical requirements to have a good society and high living standards and social stability are two of them, but not all.

Agriculture is a sector with heavy regulation and subsidies. There is a historical tradition of remunerating farmers above market prices because to lose food production is to become very vulnerable in case there is a sudden decrease in international trade. As such, this autarchic measure should be seen as an insurance. Nonetheless, farmers have an incentive to produce more than the actual market demands, as there is a wedge between what consumers pay and what suppliers get. That's why you have overproduction.

lol, is that gif from that one episode of doctor who?

When you taste the sweetness of truth, you feel constant excitement. Mine is not pride, but rather energetic confidence.

Then what about the parasitic class that get the most from not contributing - ie. the capitalist class?

A system prone to crisis every decade or so isn't stable.

It's fascinating to see how the logic of the system has warped your human decency to the limit, and molded your moral thinking. You see things purely in the framework of market, seller and customer, commodity and firm, etc.
You do still remember what the point of food is, right? Its use value, which is eating. Nothing you said erases the fact that there are hundreds of millions of people who are hungry, and we have more than enough to feed them all. Papering it over by saying there isn't sufficient "market demand" is obviously ludicrous, to any observer.
I highly suggest you read the article.

I wouldn't say most in general terms, I would say most if you talk solely about non-activity specific innovations. Non-activity specific innovations are public goods. That is, when you discover something, it can benefit all those who apply it; the marginal cost of transmitting this information to others is virtually 0; and the fact others are using that information does not mean you can't do it too. This implies a risk to the people who did the discovery. They have just spent loads of resources in finding something new but, if information transmission or use is not restrained in some way, the rewards will be diluted to those who contributed nothing as well. This is a problem as it implies this type of non-specific research carries huge positive externalities. To solve this issue, either restrict the spread and use of information, i.e. through patents; or make it public. Now, it is the specificity of what's being produced here that makes it justifiable in principle to have it being owned and controlled by the state. Traditional goods and markets do not work at all in this way, so you need some additional justification.

True. And it is because of this that when innovations are very specific to some firm, they fully finance it, as others don't benefit from using them and, hence, the gains from your investment are not diluted to everyone but only accrued to you.

Two things on distribution.
First the obvious one. Having efficient supply chains is important. Ensuring that transportation is done the least trips possible; ensuring that stores are well stocked; ensuring that you have enough inputs to produce whatever you produce, etc. are all key activities within a firm if it wants to minimize costs and attract consumers. This is part of distribution, and I think you will not argue against this.

Secondly, the least obvious point. No matter how productive you get, there is a fundamental limitation in all markets, even if all operators are machines: information acquisition and processing. This means that whenever consumers go out to buy something they don't know exactly what are the characteristics of the products they see, they don't know what each characteristic means, and they don't even know which goods are exactly available. And all of this holds even if all this information is available somewhere. This is obvious whenever you make a high-involvement purchase, and you start losing your mind over the effort required to evaluate each one of your options. This is why habit and heuristics exist and apply to low-involvement purchases. This means both there is value in simplifying people's choices, i.e. you pay a price not to spend the effort of making a choice (e.g. HR consultants, or even personal stylists); and there is some advantage in capturing people's attention, in priming people's minds (e.g. the whole advertising industry). The ridiculous market budgets are mostly due to the second point, as firms are competing for people's attention and usually the highest bidder is the one who's going to get it. An obvious example is the movie industry.

As for the pharmaceutical industry, there is an asymmetry in the market because consumers are vulnerable and often have inelastic demands. For those reasons, there are incentives to increase your market power by "bribing" doctors (but note not all marketing to doctors is bribing) and suggest some pills are a panacea when they aren't. But this is to be expected. If there is any way firms can take advantage of consumers, they will. Their goal is to maximize profit, not consumer welfare. To ever think it is possible that they maximize consumer welfare is to be naive. To ever demand it or force it is to eliminate its incentive to do anything at all. Fortunately, most of the time, maximizing profit is closely enough aligned to consumer welfare. When it isn't, introduce regulations; which is exactly what happens today. In some cases, it isn't possible to regulate what's going on. Here, the alternative is not necessarily nationalization, though.

whataboutism is very prevalent across a lot of ideologies.

Have you been living under a rock? Some forms of cancer are caused by virus, some of which vaccines have been developed for.

archive.fo/1sAml

My original IP was banned for 2 weeks for my "Consistent low-quality shitting" throughout this thread. Interpret that the way you wish. Anyway, imho, the modding here has shown itself to be run by kids and shameful. Still, I wanted to give you the reply I had already written. I will not post anything else. I don't care if I'm breaking the rules at the moment because it's clear this board is just an echo-chamber where it isn't worth having any discussion. But I still think you do deserve a reply. You can have the screen of this thread here (imgur.com/a/nKneB) if you so wish, because they are going to delete all my posts, if they haven't done it already. If you want to talk to me, add me on discord. My user is "inquiett".

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

Not contributing? If they were suddenly to disappear, society would collapse. Whenever they are removed, a new group of people take their place.
But most importantly their pressure to make the production processes below them efficient is their contribution. It is the fact that they are the ultimate watchful eyes who will smite their CEOs/managers when something goes wrong that makes the whole capitalist enterprise work. As I said, disperse ownership, and this pressure decreases, making the firm less efficient.

Out of all the crisis, only two were significant, and one of them was propped up by public institutions who had no idea what they were doing (i.e. Fed during the Great Depression). This in the US. If, instead, you look at Europe, you have again the EU having no idea what it is doing and letting some economies tank as a result. What you see, at most, is GDP decreasing 30% (US during the Great Depression, Greece today) with the obvious caveat that these losses are unequally distributed; and that they are not accurate, as a huge side economy appears during serious crisis.
Otherwise, you have crisis where GDP falls at most 5%.

I'd argue this is pretty stable, considering that people didn't have the constant and serious threat of revolution, uprisings, of having themselves or their families killed, of being displaced, of losing everything they own, of having no idea what to expect or having the notion nothing they do will affect the final outcome. The worst thing you had was people being malnourished. That is bad but even it is an decreasingly likely reality today in Europe and the US.
Moreover, I'd argue it is pretty stable, especially in comparison with all the alternatives you can come up with. Having good wishes and good will is pretty nice, but you need to look at how systems actually work.

Blah, blah, blah, moral outrage… It is the efficiency of the system which guarantees that needs of most people are going to be satisfactorily satisfied. The point indeed is use value.

We do have enough to feed them all. However, if we suddenly decided to distribute everything we produce today, we wouldn't have enough tomorrow. There is not third option here.

I skimmed it because it is more of the same. About it, I only have to say that:
- Equality is different from poverty. Poverty is much more important than ensuring equality. Equality is a means for social stability, not an end.
- The point on unaesthetic food being thrown away is interesting, but it merely points to the importance and cost of distribution. If this is happening, it goes to show you that the cost of distribution is very high, so that if these firms even wanted to sell this food to poorer people at a much lower price, they would lose money. This signals that they are already operating at low margins; and your hope is that some non-profit does the task. However, resources would be much more better spent teaching poor people useful skills, so that they can buy higher priced food.>>1624589

Who decides what your ability is, and who decides what your needs are?

Just because they took a risk on making a living doesn't make everything else they do right. Society needs people willing to take a gamble and work hard to get ahead, but it doesn't need exploitation.

no
the profit motive means that if there is an employee or some process within a firm not behaving in a way that increases profit there will be an incentive to correct it

Btw, capitalism reducing poverty is a dogshit lie.

aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/08/exposing-great-poverty-reductio-201481211590729809.html

All that is shown is data fudging. Poverty is actually rising under free trade.

If you made graphs like this for the Soviet Union or Maoist China, they would look the same. You are crediting capitalism with development that can occur independent of capitalism.

The one thing capitalism does better than anything else that has heretofore been tried, is to create commodities, and to create a demand for commodities, which has some relation (though not one-on-one) to
. And really, it is pretty neat to be able to produce a lot of commodities, some of them really do improve the quality of life. Other commodities, however, are things that are in fact detrimental to human flourishing, yet that capitalism creates and creates a demand for all the same, or are things that have no business being commodities at all, but that the alchemy of capitalism has commodified.

And that's not even getting into the re-ordering of social relations along the lines of capitalist logic, a logic of pauperization. Insofar as this blooming of commodities has benefited the great masses of people, it was usually only through collective action and government intervention on their behalf against the capitalist logic.

Wew, if that's true I'm sorry for that. Mods can be pieces of shit sometimes.

Pure idealism. They tend to give CEOs golden parachutes, and only when they managed to ruin the entire firm, or when their dirty business practices are being exposed, e.g. Volkswagen.

What has been the watchful eye was the state over the last 100, only state interventions have been proven to keep capitalism alive. If the free market is so great, why do we need anti-trust laws to keep the market artificially competitive? If you look at areas where there has been almost no regulation, like the Internet, almost everything has been monopolized to the point where there is no market anymore.

That's unfortunate. Don't have a discord, so I'll just reply to you here.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
No, I don't claim to be knowledgable. There's a lot more theory I need to read. However, when it comes to the fundamentals, I don't think it's arrogant to say I have a decent grasp of them.

I didn't advocate "sudden" disappearance, but if they were to be phased out, society would be absolutely fine. As the old mantra goes, "The boss needs you. You don't need the boss."
The workers are the ones that labor - not the boss.
Not efficient in terms of use value - just producing as much profit as possible.

Depends what you consider significant. The people affected by them would consider them to be so.
Maybe in the Western world. But in the Global South, all of these things happen…and they're living under capitalism too.
Capitalism has a falling rate of profit, which constantly produces these crises. Communism doesn't have profit.

Yet again, the defender of the status quo handwaves the struggle of the worker.
Lmao no. Shareholders do not give a fuck about people eating - they use any methods and strategies to maximize profit. And this is often opposed to fulfilling use value. From the article: "Technology can resolve a lot of issues faced by agriculture, but it doesn’t address why producers would decide to leave food in the field rather than bring it to market, or why distributors would rather throw out food than deliver it to those in need. Both are absurd acts if your goal is to feed people. But that is not the goal of capitalist food production. Capitalist production is animated by an insatiable drive to profit and accumulate."

You're just being dismissive. As you acknowledge, we have more than enough and there are people who need it. The rational thing is to give it to them. It's not like we just stop producing.

You proved my point. The system facilitates a cost of distribution that requires them to not be able to feed people. We are against distribution costing money, as well as hungry people having to pay to eat.

Another ancap here. The profit motive works both ways. Both members of any /voluntary/ exchange walk away with a profit, that is, something they value (for whatever reason) slightly more than what they gave up. If this were not the case, one side would turn down the transaction.
Even in a natural pseudo-monopoly, which is the exception rather than the rule, both sides walk away with a non-negative profit. Sure, this will make it not worth it to certain people, and these will put their money into their next-highest priority, incentivizing the market to increase efficiency in that sector instead. Additionally, the money from the pseudo-monopolist still goes back into circulation and has the same effect I just mentioned.

Who is she?

Except I need to work otherwise I'll starve and live under a bridge

Except monopolization is absolutely rampant in modern capitalism. You're brushing this off way too quickly

That's not true, the laborer literally gets his surplus value taken from him. If he creates a chair hell never be paid the value of the chair. Stop conflating profit in law with economic profit

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. I think you value not starving more than not working. If you value not working more than not starving, is it right to appropriate from someone who would also prefer to not work than to work for you? How do you decide whose will to not work dominates? I'm not trying to be cheeky here.
I argue there is no such thing as surplus value. You pay your boss a cut of the "surplus" in order to justify him providing you a job. You both walk away with a profit. You're compensated for your fair share of the labor contained in the chair.

You face up to the truth and explain why you can do it better. As a leftist, that is your duty.

If you think that the choice between working and starving is a free one, then there must be no such thing as unfreedom, for one could simply kill themselves to get out of any situation they didn't like.

Except you don't a capitalist to provide you with a job, his position is entirely fabricated by the capitalist legal system and state, without which the proletariat could just as easily take the tools, machines and infrastructure they produced and manage it themselves, including the role of reinvestment, which could just as easily be done by a computer program as a bunch of capitalists and their stock brokers

That's not not what profit is.

The fair share for the labor contained in the chair is whatever extra it was sold for on the market, after all, it was their labor who put the chair together, and those who made the tools and whatnot were already paid.

It actually is, because you value your wage more than your labor.
Crusoe isn't being exploited by the island. It's not holding a gun to his head, appropriating his labor. You're not the island's slave, but your own slave. Also markets increase the spending power of your labor to where you don't feel like so much of a slave to yourself.

On the other hand, if the proletariat seize the means, they're the ones holding the gun to someone's head.

Private property isn't a fabrication.

Moving the goalpost. I said that in response to your claim that transactions in capitalism are always profitable for both parties, as they would otherwise not engage in it. But clearly you have no leverage on your working conditions. You have a ridiculous definition of profitability when everything above living in absolute poverty is profitable for you.

It doesn't matter if you believe surplus value doesn't exist. That you will always get paid less than what you create is a mathematical fact.

That's not an argument and you know it.

You literally just got less revenue for your labor effort than what it was worth, both according to the labor theory of value as well as in terms of marginal utility.

Do you think that is a good thing? Be honest. This results in what Marx called alienation. You spend 10 of 15 hours being awake every day in your workplace, and you put your blood sweat and tears into something which you couldn't a flying fuck about?! I'd personally perceive that as horrible. At least a peasant used to consume the fruits of his own labor.

This is a level of autism I have never seen before.

The capitalist state does that too.

The position of the capitalist is hardly linked to markets themselves.

Like I said, this will happen every time you have a state, better the mass of people control it then a handful of bankers and ceos.

Foxes and bears don't rent out plots of land, m8. Personal property exists from nature, private property requires a state to enforce.

Are you saying is that the last person in the production process should be paid the entire market price? If you did that, how are the people in the earlier stages any better off? Neither side of the exchange walks away with a profit. Neither is better off after the transaction, so it won't happen without force. It's zero-sum rather than positive-sum.
I'll respond to this later.

I said I was ancap. And no. It's the only internally consistent method of resolving disputes over scarce resources.

I'll try to come back later and respond to all these. Got an assignment due later.
I appreciate the responses. I always enjoy debating you guys.

Not who you were talking to, but in answer: no. Not at all. I think there's a gross misunderstanding here about the production process. I'd like to try and lay out a simple example as an illustration of how a commodity is produced and the role of wage-labour in that process, along with the appropriation of surplus-value.

Let's take widget production. First miners mine the ore required for widget production. We'll say that each miner makes $100 per day and there are 10 miners. We'll further say that the tools and machines used in mining (their wear and tear, operation, etc.) costs $100 per day. In order to make a profit, the owner of the mining firm has to sell the day's ore for more than $1100. If he doesn't he's lost money. If he sells the day's ore for exactly $1100 he breaks even and he gets nothing. So let's say the market price of one day's ore is $1500. Where did that extra $400 come from? Why is one day's ore worth $1500 when it cost only $1100 to produce? That's the trick, that $400 is the surplus. In other words, the people who did all the work got paid less than what their labour made. Right at the beginning of the production process, the workers are already getting fucked. But let's go on.

The buyer of this one day's ore was the owner of the widget production factory. This factory has 10 workers, each again getting paid $100 per day. In one day, with one day's ore, they can make 10 widgets. Again, we'll say that the wear and tear of the tools and machines costs $100 per day. So the cost of 10 widgets comes to $2200. The owner of the widget production factory has to sell his widgets for more than $2200 in order to profit. We'll say that the going price of 10 widgets is $3000. This leaves our mining owner with a profit of $400 and our factory owner with a profit of $800. This is an extra $1200 coming seemingly from nowhere! It's not magic though, that $1200 worth of value is what was added in the production process through the labour of the workers. They added that value to the ore by mining it, and the widget by producing it. And yet the owners of these enterprises, despite not adding any value of their own, are the end appropriators of that value. This is, in the simplest possible terms, the exploitation of the worker under capitalism. He works for something he does not get.

Finally, consider this. If the widget producers make a total of $1000 per day ($100x10 workers) and the end product is sold for $3000 (which after costs leaves $800 for the owner) then in just over 2/3 of the working day they have produced enough to cover all the costs of production in addition to their wages. All the rest of their product is given to the owner with no compensation to the worker. That means that the final ~1/3 of the working day goes unpaid. Capitalism thus rests on unpaid labour. There's a reason we call it "wage slavery".

not the guy you were replying to, but the theory of surplus value rests upon all exchanges happening at their value, which doesn't happen as much today (though in the long run it does), as a result of massive advertising and commodity fetishism

for a read on the idea of surplus, "Classical Econophysics" is an interesting read, esp. chapter 6.

How does Holla Forums conciliate these opposing world view?

I don't care if you identify as an attack helicopter, private property cannot exist without a state.

youtube.com/watch?v=_An6iCCo62M

The Jew of the gaps
He works in mysterious ways

Of course you're right, the explanation I gave was based on Wage-Labour and Capital. I find it really hard to explain LTV using single examples of wage-labour in production as above. But you're absolutely right, profit is made selling commodities at their value.

The response would be the "le self made man" starting capital of a couple thousand acquired by pulling up his employer's bootstraps, or a loan.
"everyone can start a business.

This is a very good response.

Also good: you can add to this how the banks are always bailed out with your tax money when they fail, like many did during the 2008 crisis.
Flipside: this can also be used as a strawman argument against government and taxes. Tell them about how money rules politics when it happens, and make clear that things would be much worse with much larger monopolies otherwise.

The other arguments are also good but more or less the same.

I'm back.

Let me stress that this isn't internally consistent. If an employer is not authorized to negotiate the workers' wage, then nobody at all is authorized to negotiate market prices. Labor has a market price that can only be approximated through negotiation.

The free market punishes gouging. If the mine owner's self-pay makes him uncompetitive, his business will limp along while the "fairer" businesses undercut him, eventually driving him out of business and increasing everyone else's spending power.

Even a group of workers can do this logic and form a joint stock company to carry it out. Joint stock companies are a wonderful and natural part of capitalism. They all pool their savings, maybe $800 per person, and buy a $8000 mine where they earn $140 and earn back what they invested in a month. Because a person's second $800 in savings is less dear to him than his first $800, they won't agree on this unless everyone has $1000 or even $2000 leftover afterwards, depending on how risky the future looks.

What if they're dirt poor? In this case, they have labor, but they don't have the possessions to exploit their labor the way they want. So they find any venture capitalist who has the possessions, but not the labor, and they perform a fair trade. Both sides feel they're better off afterwards. They take out an $8000 loan at 10% and pay it off using a fraction of their extra income.

You're probably going to say that a jointly owned bank can do this, and you're right, but that's irrelevant because the joint owners still "stole labor" by your reasoning.

When you agree to work for someone, the agreement must be acceptable to you, otherwise you wouldn't accept it except by force or the threat of force. In negotiation, it doesn't make any sense to say one side is 50% or 200% better off, because feelings of being better off have no common measure of degree between different people. Money doesn't measure "feeling better off" for everybody across every context.

The only question you can answer is "Better, same, or worse?" If both sides say "better", then there's no problem. The poor feel they'd be better off with more money, and the rich have higher opportunity cost if they invest elsewhere, so you reduce his opportunity cost and he pays you. Fair trade. If you don't care about both sides feeling better off, then go ahead and use force, but don't complain when someone takes your money because you rank your opportunity costs differently than he would like.

Crusoe doesn't have options on his island, so nobody is exploiting him. As soon as you provide him with better alternatives to leading an mere animal existence, you're exploiting him?
See the previous example.

Actually it's troublesome enough convincing right-wingers of this, so I'll save that for another time.