Removal of risk facilitates the creation of value, but isn’t value itself. If, for example, it takes 100 dollars of constant capital and 20 dollars of variable to produce 100 widgets, with 10 dollars worth of raw materials being expected waste, reducing that to 0 results in 90 constant and 20 variable, which isn’t creation of value itself but an improvement in the productivity of capital.
Profit through capitalist production, ie exploitation of labor, is stolen value. You can work to improve your material conditions in systems that aren’t driven by profit, selling your labor-power is how the vast majority of people pay for their subsistence, but this isn’t “profit,” but wages.
In what manner? You’ve done absolutely nothing to justify the existence of landlords, or private property in general, except hinting at the idea that you yourself may be a business owner or landlord and thus benefit from the system. Why should the majority of society slave away for a system that inherently exploits them, when there are better and more equitable alternatives like socialism?
You haven’t read the article nor have you made an attempt to understand what I’m saying.
The overwhelming majority of supply chains are productive, there is no value without labor and/or natural resources. Overproduction is an inherent fact of capitalism, and reducing laborers both reduces surplus value extraction and reduces the potential for profit by reducing the number of customers. Capitalism brutally killing off the reserve army of labor is a way to keep workers desparate and willing to work for as little as possible, it isn’t a way to curb overproduction.
You really don’t know what you’re talking about or trying to critique.
Removal of risk facilitates the creation of value, but isn’t value itself. If, for example, it takes 100 dollars of constant capital and 20 dollars of variable to produce 100 widgets, with 10 dollars worth of raw materials being expected waste, reducing that to 0 results in 90 constant and 20 variable, which isn’t creation of value itself but an improvement in the productivity of capital.
Profit through capitalist production, ie exploitation of labor, is stolen value. You can work to improve your material conditions in systems that aren’t driven by profit, selling your labor-power is how the vast majority of people pay for their subsistence, but this isn’t “profit,” but wages.
Again, read the article.
Removed by mod
In what manner? You’ve done absolutely nothing to justify the existence of landlords, or private property in general, except hinting at the idea that you yourself may be a business owner or landlord and thus benefit from the system. Why should the majority of society slave away for a system that inherently exploits them, when there are better and more equitable alternatives like socialism?
You haven’t read the article nor have you made an attempt to understand what I’m saying.
Removed by mod
The overwhelming majority of supply chains are productive, there is no value without labor and/or natural resources. Overproduction is an inherent fact of capitalism, and reducing laborers both reduces surplus value extraction and reduces the potential for profit by reducing the number of customers. Capitalism brutally killing off the reserve army of labor is a way to keep workers desparate and willing to work for as little as possible, it isn’t a way to curb overproduction.
You really don’t know what you’re talking about or trying to critique.