:...... Management is necessary, it has to happen, but it is not valorizing(doesn't add value in and of itself).
Turn it around and give money to some unorganised potential workers without any guidance and what will be produced - if anything is you will find that some members have taken up then vital value enabling engine role of planning and managing.
: No, the accountant's Value/Labour Time is paid for out of Profits (just as, say, a supermarket check-out staffer is paid out of profits- they don't add to value, they only manage the value already created and restrict access). I agree that production is a holistic process, that was my cricket argument in fact, but also, for the capitalist, they don't see it that way.
The holistic approach (meaning only that it is constructed of many individual elements) means that the ice cream does not come about unless each area (including the accountants) has fulfilled its part. The information gap which would come about with their absence would soon disable the organisation meaning no ice creams.
: 1:...... only shows how two camps have competing interests, and how one exploits/lives off .....
: 2: One cannot 'earn' a million pounds through Labour .....
Weve gone through this before, its not a new point, I refer you back to my previous responses to surplus value and we'll go round and round like some Dr Who phenonoma!
:.... Capital is not earned value- when workers use shareholdings as a savings device its just the same as them putting it in a bank.
You are back to denying the organisation as part of the value adding. Denying that investment is part of the value adding and that both warrant a 'wage' as part of what has created the value.
: No, because they are not getting the full value of their labour,
They are, because they are not the only value adding element,a nd because value is not in existence until the product is exchanged.
:.... and amount to little more than an attempt to store up wealth for the time when you are deemd surplus to requirements (retirement).
Thats changing with demographics. About time too.
: 1: Investments solely.
Such as a voluntarily retired person?
2:through services to the stinking rich (i.e. a Harley Street Doctor).
(being silly) If the rich are 'stinking' and the great unwashed presumably also smell, does that leave any smell -free people. The imagery used by those against anti-indivualised wealth is most amusing.
: Why is that wrong, remember the owned money represents the values already created which
then goes into an opportunity to create more jobs. Others arent workign for free, their working
for their part and your moeny (which represents your work) is working for its part.
: Well, because much primitive accumulation, certainly here, came from things like the slave trade, land snatched during the revolution, pushing Opium in China, illicit windfalls, either that or it came from Land ownership. Its not invested earnt wealth.
That means that any system, any produce by any group or individual is 'blooded' by the past. A commune as much as a pure capitalist society. I dont believe in original sin.
Your closing piece tells me that you see the same things as having a very different basis in human nature and in its dynamic. You cannot undo any evils of the past, nor blame the decendants who benefit without doing the moral equivalent of bombing current day germans. The amount of capital owning people is more than you appear to believe, certainly in America, and probably in the UK where many are house owners by the time they are in their 40s and 50s aswell as savers and investors. whilst you may perceive a small investor as one caught in a trap trying to get his previously denied wages back from the market I describe it as the action of converting past labor value into future capital return (ie the 'wage' of capital in value creation) and one that is voluntary and desirable in a free society.