• irmoz@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    So, surplus value doesn’t exist, simply because some capitalists can… fail to extract it?

    Listen buddy, a few people being bad at their job doesn’t mean the job doesn’t exist.

    I don’t think you know what surplus value is. It’s the portion of the value that you make for the business that doesn’t go to you, but to the owner.

    Do you also notice that I said “without going broke” and your example includes going broke?

    • huge_clock@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Right, but the owner brings something to the table: capital. That capital is then risked. Don’t you think that capital owners should be compensated for providing the resources that is used in the production of commodities?

      Ordinary people who labour save their money. Are they not allowed to invest that money after they earn it? What are we supposed to do with the money that we save up that’s not used for consumption?

      • irmoz@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s risky to capture a slave. Are risks always entitled to rewards?

        The profit generated by the workers belongs to the workers. They made it. The owner didn’t. They needed the workers to make it. The owners aren’t “providing” the resources - they’re gatekeeping them, so that usage only happens under the condition that it benefits the owner.

        Also, to be quite honest, it’s even unfair to the owner. They shouldn’t have to risk it alone. It should be a joint venture from the start. These risks should be undertaken together, with all as co-owners.

        People are entitled their basic needs on the basis of being human. And all should have social ownership of the economy in general, with no individual or group having sole ownership and thus being the only ones to profit from it.

        • huge_clock@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s a double coincidence of wants. The workers aren’t able to provide any of the equipment or capital for the business. They would also rather have a steady predictable paycheque rather than jointly own a risky venture. Meanwhile the investor has capital they are willing to risk and are able to provide a steady source of income. The workers can’t make profit on their own without the capital.

          • irmoz@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The workers aren’t able to provide any of the equipment or capital for the business.

            Aw, golly gee, I sure do wonder why they aren’t able to do this.

            Because our system is set up that way!! Capitalism!

            Our system is set up to enrich owners at the expense of workers. Simple as that.

            • huge_clock@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Capitalism enables people to become rich yes, but many workers do quite well, amassing large retirement accounts and saving their hard-earned money until they too can invest it in a business. The most wealthy and productive societies with the highest wages all of major aspects of their economies controlled by free markets. It’s not a coincidence.

              • irmoz@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I feel like you’re missing the point on purpose.

                The workers do the work, yet the owner is the one who gets the money.

                Why?

                Of course the wealthiest countries have free markets. Why would that be a coincidence? It’s exactly the mechanism I described, but on a global stage. Wealthy people exploit the poorer to become wealthier. Wealthy countries exploit poorer countries to become even wealthier.

                This is a cycle that will only end with one person becoming the owner of everything, or revolution to end it.

                  • irmoz@reddthat.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    That’s less than the 100% they deserve for doing 100% of the work.

                    Please just acknowledge the fact that it’s mathematically impossible for a wage worker to actually receive what they made. The owner has to pay themselves, after all…