> I don't know how marxists square their conviction that no trade is ever beneficial to both sides with the reality that nobody is held at gunpoint to make those trades.
This isn’t a theoretical position even remotely attributable to Marxists.
This isn’t a theoretical position even remotely attributable to Marxists.
If it's actually possible to eliminate exploitation, then great, we can work towards that.
I'm not sure what's difficult to square away about that.
On the other hand, there's also differences of opinion on how consent works. Most anti-Marxists just declare any transaction without a gun as fully consential, therefore it can't be exploitation. I find that harder to square away with, it's straight up denial of harm instead of minimization of harm.
What's contended is "the premise that all enterprise is exploitation", not reducing exploitation.
> Most anti-Marxists just declare any transaction without a gun as fully consential, therefore it can't be exploitation.
This isn't a helpful projection.
> Turn and twist then as we may, the fact remains unaltered. If equivalents are exchanged, no surplus-value results, and if non-equivalents are exchanged, still no surplus-value. Circulation, or the exchange of commodities, begets no value.
Source: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch05.htm
Marx is just saying that exchange of goods in itself does not create new value. He believed in the labor theory of value, which means that human labor is the ultimate source of value creation.
The idea that trade is never beneficial does not follow from that theory.