[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There's the cost of labor,

The cost of materials,

The cost of management,

Then there is surplus.

The surplus produced goes a 100% to the "owner" of the venture. But that "owner" didn't do anything except own something. The owner can do other things on the list above, but that is beside the point.

The point is, the owner was not producing any value by owning anything. They merely claim it belongs to them by right.

Capitalism is based on people that are productive being paid less than they actually produce.

This is a necessary evil to get "investment" to start the venture in some cases. Especially in early human development. But after awhile, it is no longer necessary to set up the system that way.

That's the bases of Marxist theory. Capitalism is a phase in history were those that "own stuff" (starting with feudalism) invest in ventures to get more. Then Socialism comes along, and the productive members of the venture seize control over the "means of production."

Because their working/producing and the owner isn't.

and there is a whole list of reasons why that is inevitable. Starting with "concentration of capital" where a small group eventually own everything and use market power to take more and more for themselves until all the workers are subsistence workers.

I don't know that seizing has ever worked out well. success must be throttled to maintain competition and innovation. that much is certain. Performance also increases when employees are the only shareholders.