>The capitalist receives some of the fruit of other's labor No, the capitalist actually receives all of it; the products of labour are re-appropriated at the e

>The capitalist receives some of the fruit of other's labor No, the capitalist actually receives all of it; the products of labour are re-appropriated at the end of production. The capitalist then pays wage, which is equal to the amount required to sustain the worker, i.e what is required to reproduce his labour-power commodity. > And if the capitalist doesn't get paid, then he/she has no incentive to risk the capital in order to buy tools so the workers can be more productive. I agree, though I can't see why the workers cannot band together and buy tools and capital themselves. Also, tools aren't purchased so that the workers can be more productive, they are purchased in order to increase profit, which may come at the expense of workers. > And then we're in a world where all that really counts is the labor invested in a product, but it's not a better world. Marx was not arguing that the world should be like this, though. It's important to note that according to his law of value, it's only socially necessary labour which counts, a manufacturer can thus increase the value of one hour taken to make his product relative to others by purchasing machinery that gets the job done faster. > Workers using that tool create more value than would be created by the same workers without that tool. No, the value is merely transferred from the tool to the product, no extra value is created simply by employing the tool. The products may end up with more value, or the same value. > And some goes to the capitalist who puts up the money to buy the tool. The surplus doesn't go to the capitalist to buy the tool; in fact, the tool is purchased prior to the good being sold. The capitalist may re-invest surplus into buying more tools, though. > But the capitalist is also enabling the labors of others. No, the others could labour and even purchase the tools themselves, without the capitalist. In a Communist society, this is how it would function. A property owner is not required for the process of producing useful things. Surplus value, according to Marx, does not come out of using tools, it only comes out of the disparity between the value created by the use-value of labour power and the exchange value of labour power. The capitalist in the long run would in fact extract less surplus value with the more automation he employs, because variable capital produces the value whereas constant capital (tools etc.) can only be purchased, and they are worn down according to the value they add. Their maintenance however requires more labour, and that labour the capitalist can profit from.