But where did they get wealth to buy the tool? Who owned the tool before them? How did they get the tool? Doesn't this frame of argument just lead back to the

But where did they get wealth to buy the tool? Who owned the tool before them? How did they get the tool? Doesn't this frame of argument just lead back to the one of three scenarios: - (a) The capitalist bought the tool from a (b) or (c) through hard earned wealth as a wage-earner (super rare) - (b) The capitalist was born with more wealth because their parents were one of (b) or (c) therefore could be a capitalist not a worker (most common) - (c) The capitalist just took the wealth because the opportunity presented itself. (Land grabs, resource exploitation, etc). (less common now, but the origin point for capitalism) where else can you get "the means of production"? And thus the "right to exploit workers surplus value"? That's for <= industrial-age capital. In modern day information-era capital: What tool does a software company offer an employee that entitles them to SV... couldn't I just as simply frame it the opposite way: The Software Developer IS the tool, the Employer actually has no means of production themselves, but still claims that right.