**This remains a popular slogan among many on the left and is relevant to discussions of exploitation in society.** • The argument goes that [“the wage worker produces a surplus of values in the course of the working day which accrues to the boss - values for which the boss gives the labourer no return.”](https://archive.iww.org/history/documents/iww/economic_interpretation_of_the_job/4/). Karl Marx called this _‘Profit’_. • Marx argued that the ultimate source of profit, or [“the driving force behind capitalist production”](https://socialistworker.org/2011/09/28/what-do-we-mean-exploitation), is the unpaid labor of workers. This is exploitation. He argued that workers produce a new value which ultimately ends up belonging to the capitalist. Workers’ wages are paid in accordance with what it takes to “keep workers and their families alive and able to work” and their standard of living is affected by the outcome of “class struggles between workers and capitalists”. • It is not by charging more than their values that profit is made, but instead by [selling/exchanging them at their real values](https://archive.iww.org/history/documents/iww/economic_interpretation_of_the_job/4/). Effectively the owner sells what has cost him nothing, despite it costing his worker labour. Here in lies the dispute about whether said profit is simply the unpaid wages of the workers. • To summarise, it’s not as simple as profit being the actual wages of workers, but _instead_ refers to the broader issue of exploitation in a capitalist society. “Capitalists accumulate wealth through a system of organised theft from the working class”.

**"The surplus value, or that part of the total value of a commodity in which the surplus labor or unpaid labor is realized, I call Profit."** - Profit would not exist if workers were paid the full value of their work. - Profit is not made by simply charging things at a price above their value, but by selling the labour at its real value. - The 'real value' of commodities is based on the labour-power of the workers. - They are only paid what the Capitalist sees as the minimum value of their labour and see none of the money generated by the fruits of their labour exchanged on the market. - The remaining unpaid portion is what is known as 'profit'. - "[The Capitalist] sells not only what has cost him an equivalent, but he sells also what cost him nothing, although it has cost his workman labor."- Marx - The market prices of commodities produced by workers rise, thus the profit aka the wages of the Capitalist rise, but workers' wages rarely do. - The workers contribute to the profits (and losses) of a business yet the majority receive a static wage. - A worker could one day work 8 hours and produce £500 in value for their company, yet receive a pay of £50 that day and the other 90% would go to the Capitalist. - Another day the worker could work even harder and produce £1000 for their company yet still receive only £50. - Often, particularly in the production of 'luxury' goods, workers cannot afford to buy the very products they are producing. - The worker should be paid proportionally to the items' real value. - The highest wages should not go to those who have the least hand in the production of the commodities.

Lol I think I tried to post this on the rules of parley page I made a tldr, and I’m sorry I don’t think in bullet points but this is not a argument just stating important plot points from the start to now of capitalism, and what it looks like to me as someone who battled the power structure of religion but also is a believer and has had to figure out my own path as sheeple are the bedrock of corruption and I refuse to be a brick in that wall metaphorically. TLDR- the origin story of capitalism’s corruption in a non political cause effects explanation not meant to disagree with anything just mention the missed sub roots and why they get missed. I think it’s important and missed here that this was not the case prior to the illegal and unethical practices of at first slave labor but then child labor as the family’s without the money for slaves had more children to have a higher net family revenue. Then the industrial revolution allowed it again as while you couldn’t buy the workers anymore you were then able to own the “expensive” machines or the very tools required to preform labor. This arbitrary after initial expense and reported “upkeep costs” was then constantly the excuse for where that money actually went instead of the workers. Which to some extent is very plausible in a few cases like mining.. much less so in cases like a factory full of sewing machines.. this is when regulation, and intervention became necessary as a perceived function of the government, however in my view this was a further consolidation of wealth, and the regulatory laws ended up designed by them hurting the ability to start new companies giving more profit than would have otherwise been lost with truly free competition in the market. Yet again at the expense of the workers. Modern examples are Now we have farming where many farmers neither own the lands or the animals and are made aware of how replaceable they are if they underproduce even though that would be on the managements end forcing what care is or isn’t given to the animals. . And we have on the greatest extreme our healthcare and all related chains of the industry. Where often less complicated than your led to believe machinery is being sold at outrageous prices (compared to what the engineers or mechanists who repair them are paid) to hospitals. So to accommodate they respond by using it to run an arbitrary extra test or two allows them to get some of that back from the insurance company’s who then nickel and dime every American back for it despite always turning record profits, because when the cost of care rises their prices get to rise as well, however if it was profitable to begin with when it wasn’t so inflated then the ratio spent vs policy use in general was always gonna end up better when the price increase forces consumers to pay more for basic services and there is more room to negotiate on the insurers end by offering more than and less than packages instead of it being a regulated thing in the first place of what’s basic healthcare. So what you have is a high level chains of gate sealing spell being cast by big industry with many layers of illusion keeping it from being agreed upon by society. Through their many subsidiaries they have consolidated. Just like the original roots of industry gate keeping the price of tools and low level machinery required to work while giving the illusion that everyone has an equal opportunity. The reality is that everyone has the opportunity to take theirs from someone who doesn’t deserve it taken from them, and that is what is required to win at capitalism. Which is btw the reason China’s communism is more effective at consolidating goals producing profit and national growth in a capitalist world economy. It actually does bear real consideration for how freedom isn’t freedom if it doesn’t exist for everyone, So if everyone’s wages can be affected by the global cost of labor not just the domestic one then the corrupt will always maintain power through the perceptive need for government interventionist sanctions, and their lack of concern for the troubles of those who couldn’t afford Private security forces that are actually fairly compensated compared to our serving men and women, (Not talking police) and even more than the doctors they underpaid in our society in I believe the majority of cases. (Modern day Ronin) Then clearly communism isn’t the failure people claim and the long term benifit the Chinese people’s kids may one day reap might outweigh the burden of being oppressed, much like an athlete that dedicated their childhood to their Olympic chances might succeed. However with the added benefit of people unanimously shaming them for try Harding and not preparing themselves for the day of the event because they felt like they couldn’t loose. Because my hot take is in a highly divisive society manipulated by the powers that be into supporting the agendas that are most agreeable to them, and not focused on the greater narrative or future outcomes. Then a predetermined Capitalistic Democracy of left vs right. Sounds a lot like Authoritarian communism with extra steps lol. Of the many reasons I disagree with both sides this was a good issue to frame the issues I see, and why I feel like the 98% movement had real weight behind it so they gave us new causes, and reminders of our minor disagreements.