Credit goes to this thread: https://old.reddit.com/r/communism/comments/k5dm4o/debunking_arguments_against_marxs_theory_of/
Argument: The capitalist got the idea so he should get a share.
Response #1: This is not true at all. Starting a business does not require an idea at all. In a market based society, usually there are a dozen companies selling the same product which compete for a lower price and more customers, therefore the capitalist does not deserve any share.
Argument: The capitalist manages the business, so he gets a share.
Response #1: Sure, but it’s not necessarily true that the capitalist managing the business added any value to the business, the workers could have done it themselves. There is research that proves that worker co-ops where the workers democratically make decisions instead of a dictatorship of the capitalist in the business are more productive.
Argument: This assumes the labor theory of value, that the worker’s labor added a value to the product, but the labor theory of value isn’t true because if I make mud pies it’s a lot of work and it’s also useless, the real way to measure value is to exchange it on the market.
Response #1: The labor theory of value says that the value of a commodity is determined by the amount of socially necessary labor that’s put into it. A commodity has to have a use-value and a social want for it. Since mud pies do not have a use-value, they do not apply to the labor theory of value. Value cannot be measured by exchanging it on the market because that can be influenced by factors of supply/demand which can make things trade at a different price just because there is more or less of it, or there is more or less demand of it.
Response #2: Marx clearly said in Das Kapital “nothing can have value, without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value.” so mud pies still do not have any value. Therefore the LTV still stands.
Response #3 (You can combine this with Response 1 or Response 2): There are studies that prove the Labor Theory of Value in real life.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1045235484710203
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23599749
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.549.2098&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Argument: The capitalist takes a risk, if the business fails the capitalist has to pay the debt, therefore the capitalist is deserving of a share.
Response #1 “The Richard Wolff Method”: But the worker also took a risk, the worker moved into the state to take a job took a risk that the job would be bearable, he takes a risk everyday he comes in not knowing whether he will have his job, he may have bought a house closer to the job and takes a risk that he won’t get laid-off. Keep in mind this applies to every worker, the capitalist steals from every worker, so if you combine all the worker’s risk you would see that it is more than the capitalist’s risk.
Response #2 (This one can get philosophical) : Yeah so? If a robber comes into my house and steals my stuff, they are taking a risk that they aren’t going to get caught by the police, should I reward them for stealing my stuff and taking a risk with the cops?
Argument: It’s voluntary, the worker consented to only get a fraction of what his labor created, therefore it’s justified.
Response #1: The worker only accepted it because they were desperate. Let’s say I were to put you in a dark cage, and say you could buy your way out by working a job for me while I extract most of the money you earn from that job. Or you could just stay in that dark cage and starve to death, I’m not pressuring you to accept. Chances are you would accept because you are desperate, now replace that cage with the problems of unemployment and there you go.
Response #2: So? Just because someone consented to something doesn’t mean it’s allowed. Someone can consent to being murdered, that doesn’t mean the murderer won’t go to jail. It’s the same thing, just because the worker consented to being stolen from, doesn’t mean they are justified in being stolen from.
Argument: Okay, okay, I guess that’s one of capitalism’s flaws, but it’s the best system we have, what’s the better solution?
Response #1: Social Ownership of the Means of Production, Socialism.
Response #2: (Insert form of socialism that you like here)
Response #3: Market socialism, turn every business into a worker co-operative, studies show they are more productive and businesses today are already turning into worker co-ops.
https://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/0167-7187(88)90011-2
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale