(Original post by anarchism101)
So if you have some capital, it will magically produce more for you?
Of course not, workers have to produce it.
Where did the first 'original capital' come from? It was natural resources, which were transformed with labour into more useful things, including more capital.
'All the value'? It's unlikely to be much considering how little labour has to be put into the process.
OK, so we take machinery costs into account - the amount of the value workers create but don't get tends to be notably more than machinery costs - obviously, as otherwise the capitalist wouldn't make a profit.
You're not using 'real restrictions', rather 'current' or 'example-specific' restrictions. That you chose a bad example is not my fault.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that there is practically no risk - maybe its a couple of decades in the future and something has been invented which allows us to locate oil, and know its quantity and quality exactly without digging first. Or maybe a foreign company started the digging and found the oil, but then had to leave due to the government bringing in restrictions on foreigners. I'm sure you can think of more. Regardless of whether the decision was risky or not, the production is going to be the same.
It wasn't a comparison, it was simply showing that the 'immaculate conception of capitalism' picture you presented was false, and due to state intervention continues to be so to this day.
That's very bad analysis, as the two are crucially different. The rod, a means of production, cannot create new value, merely facilitate its creation. Labour, on the other hand, creates new value.
Decision-making is labour. Any decision making the owner does, they do as a worker (and I'd still advocate that self-management would deal with this better).
Nothing else can create value. Capital had to be created by workers too. Everything is created out of original natural resources, which of course originally had no value because they were free to take.
'If'? Labour is
detached from ownership. That's what I want to end.
I'm sure people said in 1788 that monarchy in France wouldn't change in their lifetimes.
By the way, appeal to tradition fallacy.