> I disagree, by "use" I mean the satisfaction of human needs rather than the growth of capital. I accept that in many (or even most) situations, there is a close alignment between them, but the number of cases in which they align closely is a quantitative measurement, as opposed to what is in my judgement the much more important qualitative dimension by which future production is decided. My point here was much less about efficiency, but on the contradiction of what's actually happening; the material need a house serves is expressed when it is built by the concrete labour which goes into it, but the coordination of abstract labour is totally different - to the point where people "use" the exchange value of a house. Consider the term "commodification" which applies more to culture in general, but is also relevant in capital's stance that use-value can be compromised (to an extent to which it is not itself aware in the anarchy of the market) in favour of exchange value.

I'm not sure I understand what precisely you're trying to say here. It seems you accept that capitalism produces an efficient quantity of goods with respect to demand. You seem to have a problem with the 'abstraction' that capitalism provides...but ultimately that abstraction is simply a complex interaction necessitated by efficiency, if you absolutely had to, you could map it all out. It is a concrete phenomenon, though i'm not sure why it would matter if it were abstract either.

> By this it seems that you are admitting it is a farcical choice, even as you have presented it - submit yourself to this order, or forage for food in the forest as though society had never produced the riches it has.

I agree that that is the choice, though I don't accept it as farcical. Humans labored to create the riches society has, why should you be entitled to them by birthright? Does being human entitle you to the products of other human's labor?

> Where did you get the factory? Under what premise, whose threat of force and justification have you barred me from taking it or sharing in it?

Yes, the primitive accumulation problem is real. However, most citizens actually have quite free access to capital, in the developed world at least. Credit is fairly easy to obtain if you have a decent business plan. The idea that access to capital (in the developed world) is some major barrier preventing people from starting businesses isn't really an accurate reflection of the capitalist world as it operates.

Now, you will have to pay a price for that capital, because the person who owns it is renting it to you. If you want to trace that ownership all the way back, you will eventually run into some form of theft, sure. But it may take you many generations to get there, and the equilibrium of the iterated game is that those resources will flow (regardless of their initial distribution) to those members of society who employ them most productively (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem).

What does this mean? It means that, in some sense, the primitive accumulation argument is invalid on a long enough time scale and with low enough transaction costs. Do those assumptions hold in practice? Not exactly, but they are close enough to reality (in my opinion) that we should be deeply skeptical of any other algorithm for resource allocation (which economic systems ultimately are - resource allocation algorithms).

> Why should I either have to work for you (as you dictate my human essence, my labour, according to the exact method and timings that you dictate for the duration you dictate) or subject myself to the scrutiny of the market, and have this other authority dictate what I produce?

That's an interesting question, but it has, to me, a deeply satisfying answer. Which is that this 'market' abstraction is really a concrete thing. It represents the (approximate) utility-weighted needs and wants of the entire rest of civilization. You receive the resources of civilization in exchange for contributing to it. We probabilistically solve that extraordinarily complex equilibrium via the price mechanism.

> I also question how you're able to sell the products I make without either tricking people into paying more than they're actually worth, or paying me less than my labour is worth.

How do you define 'worth'? Is 'worth' cost? Is it the value to you? Or is it the point at which supply and demand balance? Capitalists choose the final answer. They choose it because it solves the pareto-optimal resource allocation problem with respect to the needs and wants of all humans, weighted by those humans prior contributions to the civilization. An almost impossibly elegant solution to the problem.

> The situation is ideological thus: Imagine if I start a business and say to you: "Hey, you are a slave with little or no mobility, conditioned to this fate by your birth or regulations in society, work for me, and I'll give you some shelter and food. Otherwise you can leave Rome and find some farmland and live on that." - repeat with the feudal mode of production (you are a lord who demands my corn-tithe, but in exchange I get to work your land using your tools).

There is a very important distinction here though. Your examples are caste systems. You cannot become a feudal lord, no matter how hard you work. In a modern capitalist economy, however, all you need to move from the worker class to the capitalist class is a business idea and a willingness to take some personal risk. In my view, that completely changes the moral character of the situation.

> There is a fundamental asymmetry between capital and labour, which your example can't show so simply, and it's the reason why labour unions exist and why Socialists have campaigned for the past century and more for decent working conditions and to some extent acheived them. Marx knew it, Lincoln knew it and Jefferson knew it. I understand you weren't trying to model the totality of social relations with such an example, but we can't take the example and say "that's all that's happening, multiplied by 7.5 billion". The difference between this world and Crusoe's island isn't merely in size, it's in nature, which has come about through historical development.

I sort of agree here. I'm not sure I would describe it as such a fundamental asymmetry. Capital competes for labor just as much as labor competes for capital. Now, there are often situations where there are profound power imbalances, and I think labor unions can be useful in achieving the proper power balance in many situations. So I do agree that capital tends to have more power, but that power is not unchecked (in the way that say, a slave owner's is unchecked). If I run a garment factory with terrible working conditions, there is a market opportunity for you to open another garment factory next door with better working conditions, and poach all my skilled laborers. You can see this quite clearly with high skill professions, like computer programming. Tech companies compete fiercely with each other for top talent. It can be harder to see in lower skilled professions, but the competitive pressures are there.