But what does the owner class do? They buy company shares and wait until the money generated by our work lands in their accounts. Let’s take a look at a simple calculation: I buy shares in an index fund with 2 million euros. Conservatively estimated, this yields a 6 percent return each year. That means that on December 31, I look at my account and see that 120,000 euros have been transferred to it. But where does this money come from? You earned it with your labor. I didn’t contribute anything. Yet your annual salary is probably significantly lower.

Now, of course, you could say that I then use this money to make investments and, for example, buy additional means of production with which wage workers can produce goods and services. But remember: this money was only generated through your work. So why am I the one who is now investing in order to profit even more from it later? Why don’t we organize society in such a way that those who do 100% of the work are not also the ones who own the company? Or that the means of production are generally socialized. Profits are distributed fairly, investments are decided democratically, and everyone can participate.

In other words, capitalists are only part of the value creation process because of the way ownership is structured in our society. Not because they contribute anything. Again: everything that has exchange value only has it because of the labor that went into it. Every store, every factory, every commodity. Just everything. We created it all. But it belongs to others.

You and I belong to the vast majority of humanity who have to sell their labor to survive. That’s why we have to stick together, comrade. Because there is another group that not only doesn’t have to work and lives off our labor, but also accumulates incredible resources and influences politics according to its will. A few super-rich people like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos own more than the poorer half of humanity. How can we allow this to happen? We would all be better off.

Either way, it’s a question of definition.

It doesn’t belong to you just because you decided it does.

And it doesn’t not belong to me just because you decided it doesn’t. What is “belonging” if not a legal status? However, my assertion is that in our capitalist society, we have established a legal system whereby even though you and I produce things, they do not belong to us. Instead, under threat of punishment or, alternatively, the threat of starvation, we give them to another group that has contributed nothing at all. What do you call that? Robbery! What the capitalists call property, they took away from us first. You need to get rid of that neoliberal mindset and stop fighting for their interests and against your own.

the best cashier in the world’s skills are worthless unless a store already exists for them to cashier in

Nevertheless, without labor, the store will not generate any (exchange) value. If you think the store itself has value, that value was also created solely through labor. Exchange value is created solely through labor. After all, labor is ultimately what is exchanged. Anything that did not require labor has no exchange value.

Both employer and employee come together for that value creation to be possible

What does the employer bring to the table? Exactly one thing: the means of production. But even those were created by labor. So the capitalist didn’t contribute anything either. He just has capital. Everything of value, the entire economy, every invention, every mashinery, every computer, every commodity, was created solely through labor. Capital is the parasite that appropriates a large part of the value created by society without doing any work itself.

Neither entity alone can create that value

Yes. The worker alone creates the value. He does not need the capitalist. But if the means of production were in his hands, he would not have to work for free for the capitalist’s profit.

“Profit = theft” is a moronic notion.

You grew up in capitalism and have internalized capitalist ideology. That’s why it seems natural to you that we allow an entire group of people to do nothing (except rig politics in their favor) and still accumulate most of humanity’s resources. But in fact, it’s a huge scam against me, you, and everyone else who has to sell their labor to survive.

No, it isn’t, at all. I’m talking about morality, not legality

Yet your argument is: It’s wrong because it would be against the law (“theft”). But that’s merely a matter of definition… And it’s not theft to take back something that belongs to you.

Theft is what happens every day in every working relationship. Value is always and exclusively derived from labor. If someone has capital worth 500 million, that means they have the labor value of 500 million. Did they earn this value themselves? Of course not, it is the value of our labor that they have stolen.

But even if that weren’t the case, this argument is roughly on the same level as “drugs are illegal because they are prohibited.” Always remember: in the Third Reich, it was legally forbidden to hide Jews. But it was legally permissible to kill them. What the law says must never be the basis of morality. And on top of that, the law is simply something that is determined as such. It can just be changed. In your words: we can easily define it as “not wrong.”

Revolution and the end of capitalism aside, I have yet to find a Lib who can explain to me why it would be wrong to take everything from the rich except, say, 500 million. There would be no losers. The rich would still be rich, but we could do so much good with the money.