The hate was you focusing on the profiteers, and want was you focused on consumers. However the product must go from a to b. Then b to c. Etc. Workers are a key aspect of this process and most people ignore this.

Chocolate in mexico does have deep indigenous and historical roots. However this is not why it’s so big, it’s massive due to a bunch of exploitation of the region. It’s why Mexico has only sorta been at peace since the 1980s. I have studied greatly how white supremacists funded some of our state conflicts. Literally the KKK.

Anyways, you are too focused on the chocolate example when I never really talked about it. All I am saying is this is good, however I can also see it growing corrupt by forfeiting too much to the governance. Going back around from one capitalist structure to the next. State efforts to counteract start one way, I am saying they always end the same. Power corrupts.

Anyways, my point is the people will rise if they are suppressed. What goes up must come down, as above so below.

However, you have too much faith in governance, for yours has not taken from you humanity.

Thank you for joining me in the conceited side for thinking your point is more correct.

They work in tandem, but no one who is good can agree on what is good. Only on what is bad.

I never said they are a bad thing. I am saying it is forfeiting a lot to the governance - seizing the means of production to them.

The bengali famine was a multifaceted issue, however primarily it was the contracts and forced control of the British. In which they withhold food availability for war time embargos along with a focus on textile farming. All the contractees then essentially focused on money rather than food, as that was the profit of a contract.

So focused on hate and want you only see the consumer and capitalist, but not the worker’s back. However, all three shall crumble under such a fumble.

The lower price would mean lower quality traditionally yes, but also implies cost cutting measures beyond that. Then creating regulation as a governance is expected the lowest prices. Did they circumvent regulations, taxes, etc.

Government correction can overextend their force with control of the fields and markets. Just look at the farming or fiahing history in most nations who had regulated government contracts.

The point of this kind of product is to be the baseline, no capitalist should be able to afford to offer the same product for less, because the government already has the lowest possible margin.

HENCE, how could a capitalist compete, leaving only inferior or circumvention of regulations. Needing recitifying. Over extension of power leads to suppression of the workers, field owners, and consumers. With capitalism winning.

Your last paragraph is ludicrous, start by making a better product. Reflecting in cost and raising the value of the product reaching the end user. Antithetical to your previous point.

You have so little experience with the pain of the world that you can only dream your comforts.

So what does suppression of the people lead to?

In an ideal world, yes that would be the competition. However, in reality if the governance sets the standard, they can have almost always the cheapest prices. Wide reach, built transportation systems and probably incentivized contracts. Essentially everything that fucked up India with the British during ww2.

Well if another company can go lower, it inherently implies they are skimping somewhere so quality is lost or regulations circumvented. Any government correction can overstep.

Go start your not-for-profit competition. Farm for yourself, grow crops at home, reduce your footprint. Find community in your neighborhood.

Government should probably provide the cheapest food and set the standard.

However ideology like this leads to issues in reality.

If a competitor gets lower prices would hint at some questionability. Government correction becomes suppression. Suppression leads to . . .?