• TreadOnMe [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    6 months ago

    I get what you are saying, but your confusion comes from a misinterpretation of theory. They can make ‘profit’ without your labor, them holding land and speculative value assets can technically generate ‘profit’ for them if the market is scarce in those resources and demand is high, as they go up in valuation. What they cannot get from you is socially-productive labor, a.k.a. the labor that recreates society in such a way that speculative values can be actualized. However the problem is that the market for socially-productive labor ‘for the capitalist’ is satisfied by the labor market, they are always trying to shear the sheep, not kill it. The issue that we run into is that eventually the most profitable thing to do is only invest in finite goods, and all else is left to the wayside to rot and fester until those nessecery goods and services become commodities as well.

    • Llituro [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      to be clear, i understand this. it’s more just that from the perspective of anyone but the capitalist, it seems nonsensical. obviously the most profitable thing to do is keep a reserve army of labor and marx talks about that.