Capitalism seems to have made us all think it's completely okay to exploit someone else's surplus labour. How is the risk the founder takes that different to Employee #1's? Their payout is usually vastly different, but their contribution not so much.
I am sorry but the whole disagreement is on what value a worker contributes.
According to Capitalism and Capitalism supporters, a productive activity is the sum of (Land/raw materials + Labor + Capital). Capital is nothing but deferred consumption. If you don't consume what you could consume, then that constitutes as capital.
When you say that Capitalism exploits another's surplus labor, what you don't understand is that the Capitalist pays for that surplus labor via capital (or time). Any worker in Capitalism is entitled to the full share of the profit as long as he does not expect wages to be paid out immediately, and that he is willing to wait until the profits pour in.
Because most labor is paid immediately, and workers have no risk or delayed consumption, they don't get the share from the profit.
Karl Marx noticed this phenomenon, but was unable to understand the role of Capital(and yea I know he wrote a whole book on this concept). To him, careful inspection revealed a 'conspiracy theory' among the capitalists which he dubbed as class struggle and class interest.
> How is the risk the founder takes that different to Employee #1's? < When you compare the risk of the founder vs risk of the employee #1, it is the matter of how much capital is on line there. Clearly the risk taken by someone who has invested $1000 is less than the risk taken by someone who has invested $10,000 into the same venture at the same time.
Funny thing is when people talk about a cooperative, it's no different than an early stage equity startup where nobody gets paid a salary. The moment a cooperative pays salary before the revenue, it will need capital and the person providing the capital would deserve a bigger share from the profits.
You possess an either infantile and misinformed understanding of Marx, or you're just being ideological here. Have you read Capital? It's not just one book. Marx very well understood the concept, role, and agency of capital. His careful inspection did not reveal a conspiracy theory; instead, it elucidated the ways capital influences our material existence. There was no conspiracy among capitalists, only naturally flowing consequences of capital's impact on the material bases of society.
I don't understand what is offending you so much here. I am claiming that Marx does not understand Capital, and just because he claimed to have analysed the role of 'capital', it doesn't mean that he 'understood' it. A christian biologist writing about the role of fossils doesn't mean he understands it.
> His careful inspection did not reveal a conspiracy theory; instead, it elucidated the ways capital influences our material existence. <
Did Marx not say that the employer is able to claim a right to 'surplus labor' because the capitalist class (state being one of them) protects this right(property rights)?
Does he not claim that almost all property is acquired via theft and coercion of the labor class? I understand that conspiracy theory is a loaded term, but his idea of 'class interest' is nothing but a conspiracy theory. That somehow all the capitalist are conspiring against the workers, without being explicitly aware of it.
Karl Marx did not understand that Capital allows production but doing division of 'labor'(used here to mean 'tasks'). Workers don't need to invest their time in the production process, and wait for the revenue of a business to pour in, while a person specializing in saving, does the job of providing the wages.
That this is a necessary factor needed in any economy and it's impossible for any society (including the one recommending by Marx) to live by not having division of capital accumulation from labor.
Maybe each employee has to donate credit to the company for expenses if they don’t have the cash?
I started my company with bank loans and credit lines. If it goes bust, it's my reputation and I will have to pay back the money.
If someone isn't willing to risk this as well, they aren't an equal partner and shouldn't share equally in the reward.
Some people aren't willing to risk this much, yet still want to contribute. They are employees.
> How is the risk the founder takes that different to Employee #1's?
Employee #1 will probably be getting a salary, if the company fails he can get a job somewhere else. Meanwhile the founders who worked on the idea probably used their savings initially not to mention quitting their jobs and working on the idea and facing humiliation if the company fails.
That takes courage which everyone cannot do which is why founders deserve to get rich if they build something valuable, employees not so much unless they are willing to stick it out till the end.
Please describe what "risks" the average high-flying tech startup CEO has taken.
Those companies and many others will not work as a cooperative.
Because it's so hard to adapt CEO skills to the jobs market? Whilst peons can pick up a low paid job and should just lap it up and be happy about it??
If the founder is taking a risk running the company then the employees are taking a risk working there; their risk is often as great, the chance to lose one's livelihood.
To my mind a guy in sales that wrote up £1 million of orders in one days work and a guy in janitorial that cleaned the toilets all day both did a days work and both deserve a days pay - they're both humans who gave a day of their lives to the purposes of the company.
The janitor should be paid the market rate, nobody is denying that but he should not expect to get rich via the company
