3 ms·
"Simply owning a large company and taking surplus value from a large number of people is exploitation." Who are these large number of people? Customers or supp
by QueensGambit 6y ago
"Simply owning a large company and taking surplus value from a large number of people is exploitation."
Who are these large number of people? Customers or suppliers? In socialism, customers are usually held captive because of limited suppliers. In capitalism, suppliers are usually held captive because of fierce competition to get customers. Neither sounds inherent exploitation by the entrepreneur.
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoI believe that the claim is that the workers are exploited, because they produced value but received less than the value they produced. And that does sound like exploitation. But consider the alternative. Let's say that every worker was paid for the full value that they produced. That would mean that the profit of every company was $0, because the workers got all the value produced. How many companies would we have? Probably not very many. Risk my capital to start a business, for a return of $0? Yeah, no. I'll pass. So will most people. And that would mean that we wouldn't have the things that large businesses produce, from computers to airplanes to vaccines. Even for the workers, is that a net win? I don't think so.