4 ms·
So the ruling class (capitalists) have defined what theft is and have armed bodies to enforce it. Profits aren’t somehow defined as theft, despite all value be
by lucian1900 5y ago
So the ruling class (capitalists) have defined what theft is and have armed bodies to enforce it.
Profits aren’t somehow defined as theft, despite all value being produced by the labour of workers, who are paid a fraction of the value they produce.
- chii 5y ago> all value being produced by the labour of workers, who are paid a fraction of the value they produce only if you believe that the capital being used to produce value - including the wages being paid upfront - are valueless.
- lucian1900 5y agoIs that capital also not produced by workers, in the past? It’s a form of crystallised labour. Also, does a fixed initial investment entitle one to a fraction of all future (variable) value produced? Why?
- chii 5y agoAll investments entitle one to all future productivity produced from said investment. This is the central idea of ownership. The new capital is _produced_ by the workers, but it was done with initial capital that is _owned_ by the capitalist. So unless you agree that these initial capital is not worth anything (despite it being required), how can _all_ capital belong to the workers that made it? After all, the workers agreed to receive their wage in exchange for producing, using the seed capital supplied by the capitalist.
- lucian1900 5y agoThe initial capital entitles the investor to a fraction of all labour, in perpetuity? Without any further work or investment? Yes, this appropriation is central to the capitalist idea of ownership. Another word for that is theft.