>>104032801>owners of capital illegitimately alienate the "surplus value" of production
This is the point of debate between red-blooded, freedom-loving americans and filthy socialists. Both recognize that capital creates a huge amount of capital (not necessarily value) by an order of magnitude. Labor creates for dollars, capital creates dollars per dollar, as you can use that capital directly to make more capital. No matter which ratio of Laborers to Bankers you have*, after a few fiscal cycles the Bankers will always have more than the Laborers, buy more labor, which is more lucrative to a finite amount of people whose capital return is less than what they'd make in labor. Wealth drains to the top.
We recognize a capitalist society, where capital does = value. Now, as a natural result of good fiscal decisions by everyone, all but a handful of people have no capital, nor value. Most only contribute the commodity of their labor and since they are obliged to work to survive, they will receive the bare minimum that allows them to. This is fine as long as there's some form of wealth redistribution, welfare, increased wages, investment in public commodity. Food stamps drive the wage down, but the wealth is simply distributed through a different medium than in wages, take your pick.>illegitimately
Capital creates value for, ultimately, the very few. It's not "fair" to redistribute, but if a system fails the users, change it. Do lives have value beyond paper?
*I recognize that most people profit from both capital and labor. It still stands though that if you have ten people, #1 only labors, #10 only banks, #2-#9 have a scaling ratio of capital gain and labor gain, in a short while #10 will have accumulated most of the wealth in the system. Try It Now: If each person starts with $1, Labor makes $n+1 dollars per cycle, Capital makes $n*1+(n-labor cost in system). Below what income ratio is labor more lucrative than capital? How is the wealth distributed after 50 cycles?