I would like to highlight, too, that Marx builds up on Ricardo who builds up on Smith and all of those are more or less agreeing that society reproduces and that the profit motive from capital means that it is a necessity for reproduction of society and thus capitalism's reproduction that there is a profit.
It doesn't have to be in every company, but over statistical averaged time frames there will be profits averaged over companies and sectors.
However there is another answer which is that: Workers do already burden the highest costs and the highest losses of companies. Not only do they have to work, they lose money and pay with their health and their families and communities health, they are not paid when the company fails and are often not paid even though bosses or investors are paid. Even if we ignore wage theft and see it from capitalists lense then it is the worker who gets stolen from most and who loses most if a company fails.
It also needs emphasis that capitalist loss and gain are in terms of value, an abstract capitalist version of wealth and not direct material wealth. The same amount of value can represent different amounts of commodities depending on the productivity of labor at a given time. We are hilariously more materially productive today than we were in Marx’s time, but the logic of capital demands that, nope, we still need to gain by X% over the invested value regardless of how many physical commodities are required to embody that value. So, when we speak of sharing losses with workers, we should remember that we’re talking about a specific kind of loss that doesn’t necessarily even mean we’re struggling in terms of absolute material wealth.
Good points. I also didn't mention cyclical problems of capitalism, or that those workers who clock in and [want] to "do their hours" would still have very vested interests about how many hours they have to do. The objective interest of the working class gets hidden by talk as the anti-communist poster did.
Yeah, and losses only means reduced profits anyways
I would like to highlight, too, that Marx builds up on Ricardo who builds up on Smith and all of those are more or less agreeing that society reproduces and that the profit motive from capital means that it is a necessity for reproduction of society and thus capitalism's reproduction that there is a profit.
It doesn't have to be in every company, but over statistical averaged time frames there will be profits averaged over companies and sectors.
However there is another answer which is that: Workers do already burden the highest costs and the highest losses of companies. Not only do they have to work, they lose money and pay with their health and their families and communities health, they are not paid when the company fails and are often not paid even though bosses or investors are paid. Even if we ignore wage theft and see it from capitalists lense then it is the worker who gets stolen from most and who loses most if a company fails.
It also needs emphasis that capitalist loss and gain are in terms of value, an abstract capitalist version of wealth and not direct material wealth. The same amount of value can represent different amounts of commodities depending on the productivity of labor at a given time. We are hilariously more materially productive today than we were in Marx’s time, but the logic of capital demands that, nope, we still need to gain by X% over the invested value regardless of how many physical commodities are required to embody that value. So, when we speak of sharing losses with workers, we should remember that we’re talking about a specific kind of loss that doesn’t necessarily even mean we’re struggling in terms of absolute material wealth.
Good points. I also didn't mention cyclical problems of capitalism, or that those workers who clock in and [want] to "do their hours" would still have very vested interests about how many hours they have to do. The objective interest of the working class gets hidden by talk as the anti-communist poster did.