Realize capital has no market value without labor to work it. This goes for real estate too, which workers require to rest themselves just in time to return to work to turn a profit for those that control capital.
Capitalism has no concern about power. It only speaks to ownership rights.
And, as an aside, what you are envisioning clearly puts the power in the hands of labour. As you said: "Realize capital has no market value without labor to work it."
Capitalism is entirely about power.
> It only speaks to ownership rights.
“Ownership rights” are power. Capitalism evolved through the mercantile class under pre-capitalist systems leveraging their then-current power to force changes in the system which durably transferred power from the land-tied aristocracy to themselves.
Surely it is people that are entirely about power?
> “Ownership rights” are power.
Perhaps, but capitalism only describes one of many different ways of organizing ownership. It is not about ownership in and of itself. It turns out that we already have a word for ownership: Ownership. We came up with another word, capitalism, because it means something else.
You cannot decouple ownership from politics. If you own the productivity of the nation, you own the nation.
A world where "Realize capital has no market value without labor to work it" is true cannot see power reset in the hands of those with capital as it asserts that capital has no value without labour, which means that labour holds all the power.
I don't know what world that was meant to refer to. It did not specify, nor was it it written by me in order to specify now. You may have accidentally pressed the wrong reply button?
> You cannot decouple ownership from politics.
That may be true, but the concept of ownership doesn't come from capitalism. Socialism, for example, also describes ownership. You cannot couple ownership with capitalism.
What is the takeaway here? Are you suggesting that we should rid the world of math because it might accompany something not liked? Indeed, no more math, no more electronic distribution of CSAM material. Problem solved?
Moreover high wages simply encourage innovation in labor saving devices and techniques. Tight labor markets aren’t the capitalists enemy. It’s no different than other input costs in some sense.
Next, Marxists recognize 2 central forms of value:
Use value is abstract, but not subjective.
Exchange value is contextual.
That's it. That's what you need to argue with, instead of your ridiculous straw men above.
Additionally, it can hardly be stressed enough how unimportant labor theory of value is for Marxism as a whole.
Marx: "Let us now take two commodities, for example corn and iron. Whatever their echange relation may be, it can always be represented by an equation in which a given quantity of corn is equated to some quantity of iron, for instance 1 quarter of corn == x cwt of iron. What does this equation signifify? It signifies that a common element of identical magnitide exists in two different things, in 1 quarter of corn and similarly in x cwt of iron. Both are therefore equal to a third thing, which in itself is niether the one nor the other. Each of them, so far as it is exchange-value, must therefore be reducible to this third thing. [...] As use-values, commodities differ above all in quality, while as exchange-values they can only differ in quantity, and therefore do not contain an atom of use-value. If then we disregard the use-value of commodities, only one property remains, that of being products of labour."
In other words, Marx excludes use-value (what normal economists call "utility") as being a factor in the price of a commodity, apart from needing to exist at all (he reduces its relationship to a boolean relationship,) and makes it a function of labor quantity. This is so central to his argument that it comes up in the first few pages of Capital.
Demonstrate why this is true. What _exactly_ about the definition "private ownership of capital" necessitates that capitalism must give way if capital cannot be worked for profit by cheap labor?
