: A very old argument, Gee: Labor gets only what it would have earned had the brilliant capitalist not stepped in. That fallacy denies all possibility of worker's associations. Just because worker's have no ability to control the means of production in capitalist society, does that mean they could not manage them?
If anything it serves to *encourage* worker ownership doesnt it? Rather than deny such - this economic point can be used to demonstrate to people why ownership is good. Why do you think that 10% you speak of get into business owership? theyre not born into it.
What it does point out is that value is not realised in its end-product use value until that organision, its design and the properties of the product were not developed by some people, and that these people 'getting reward according to work' are getting more reward.
We can discuss the merits / dismerits of inheritance in another post.
: Profit is gain based upon use value...
No, profit is gain based upon exchange-value.
Perhaps it may have helped you to read the whole sentence in context.
: Now it's quite obvious that you haven't even read the first volume of Capital.
What obvious is that I'm not slavishly agreeing with it - is that what you think happens to people who read it? You promised them they would never see the world the same again - perhaps you read it uncritically and experienced something akin to a religious revelation.
: The circulation sphere is where value is realized, the production sphere is where value is created.
Without circulation the production is meaningless, only post circulation (upon *realization* of value) can anything meaningful be said about the production sphere creating value - the value is reliant, determined and actualizes only upon being traded and at no prior point.
: Go join your right-wing kissin' cousins Doc, DonS, and Frenchy and enjoy their intelligence for a while...
Draw whatever conclusions you believe will comfort you the most.