When I hear the arguments from those on the progressive/liberal/leftist side in relation to capitalism, I hear an interesting notion. Profit and Capitalism are inextricably linked, and yet profit and socialism/communism/progressivism are rarely connected. The general idea is that Capitalists are profit-focused and care little of the impact of their actions in search of profit. Personally seeing how poorly large institutions can treat their base employees, I can see the appeal of placing a negative label on profit. Ardent Capitalists, even, have a difficult time trying to argue against the negative morality of profit.

But that is inherently the problem. When trying to argue about the morality of profit, the entire argument doesn’t revolve around profit at all, but rather the battle over voluntarism and the treatment of the worker, which is subject to more emotional based appeals rather than logical thought.

So then the effort needs to be made to divorce profit as a strictly capitalist concept, and instead look at how profit actually works. Thank you to Merriam-Webster for this lovely definition.

Profit

noun, often attributive

prof·​it | \ ˈprä-fət  \

Definition of profit

 (Entry 1 of 2)1: a valuable return : GAIN 2: the excess of returns over expenditure in a transaction or series of transactionsespecially: the excess of the selling price of goods over their cost 3: net income usually for a given period of time 4: the ratio of profit for a given year to the amount of capital invested or to the value of sales 5: the compensation accruing to entrepreneurs for the assumption of risk in business enterprise as distinguished from wages or rent.

Profit

verb profited; profiting; profits

Definition of profit (Entry 2 of 2)

intransitive verb 1: to be of service or advantage : AVAIL 2: to derive benefit : GAIN 3: to make a profit

Often times those opposed to capitalism will refer solely to profit in its noun form, forgetting the verb for entirely. The verb version of profit is where their argument tends to fall apart. The general structure is that the worker should receive all profits from the sale of a good or service, and that things like slavery, colonialism, and capitalism are theft because the profits are all collected into the hands of the few, rather than to be shared equally among all workers.

But where their argument falls apart is just there. The profit is indeed shared among all the workers. And, to be so bold, those who have voluntarily agreed to work for a business or to engage in commerce get preferential treatment because they, as the worker, are guaranteed to receive their share of the profit before the business owner/capitalist. This part of the equation is lost among those who tend to view capitalism as morally objectionable. Indeed, in exchange for their labor at an agreed upon wage, the worker benefits by receiving a payment. They derive benefit, aka profit, from that exchange.

I will briefly touch on the “wage slavery” argument. The gist is that wage labor is equivalent to slavery because people are wholly dependent on that wage, usually doing some sort of backbreaking or menial task, to live. In any system: capitalistic, communistic, anarchistic, fascistic, or naturalistic, we are subject to biological imperatives, the most basic among these is to breathe, then drink, then eat. Since we are not plants, rooted in the ground and performing the task of making our own food through photosynthesis and drawing minerals and water in through our root systems, our life is essentially the output of our energy (labor) in exchange for the resources necessary to continue that exchange. And in that circumstance, any output of energy carries with it risk.

Until the organization of individuals into groups and the specialization of labor, we had to do everything on our own. Forage, hunt, or farm our own food, make our own clothes, defend our patch of land from someone or something that wanted it, make our own weapons, find our own mates, etc. Once someone got the idea that they could do something better than anyone else, they then offered to exchange that skill they provided for the things they needed to continue to satisfy their biological imperatives (breathe, drink, eat, mate, belong). Once they found someone willing to exchange another good or service with them voluntarily, both sides experienced mutual benefit (profit). One person took the risk to produce more than they needed and took the risk to find someone to exchange that excess thing, and the risk to negotiate the exchange. But both parties profited from that exchange.

The worker benefits from capitalism because they earn that which helps them continue to satisfy their biological imperatives (breathe, drink, eat, mate, belong). The capitalist benefits from capitalism because they manage to get a return on the risk that they took to produce that thing to exchange. Both parties benefit from the arrangement, made voluntarily.

But, some would argue that the benefit (profit) was not equal. And my response is simple. It is not an equal benefit because it was not an equal risk. Nor should it be. To equalize the outcome of an exchange would provide a disincentive for those willing to take the risk, and would undermine the building blocks of civilization itself. I hope that this argument never reaches that conclusion. We have seen it in the world far too often and know the suffering it causes.