But the liberal mobs want to tax and beat the rich into submission with pitchforks!

While the liberal might blame the consumer market, you should know that solutions concerned with wealth still will remain a solution within the increasingly late stage capitalist world society, otherwise known as corporate globalism. This capitalism we see then is a capitalism of stagnation and increasing wealth divide, also known as stratification, and wealth equality is presented as our solution by the modern-day liberal. It is a capitalism where the wealthy are so wealthy that they don’t even know what to do with all their funds, except for making more of that very wealth, and unspent money gets moldy.

Well I call fake news on that, buddy, so don’t feed me any of your shit.

As you have seen, you may busy yourself socially with the capital taken from the sweat on somebody else’s back. We can busy ourselves with the so-called blood-for-oil money of the petrodollar, or we may consider the inevitable results of challenging the multinational corporations, vast and far-reaching corporate-control monopoly which claims to be bringing freedom and western democracy to the rest of the world. You may busy yourself with your strategies, this day and age, for protesting the latest human rights violations, strategies for boycotting hummus brands and calling for increased sanctions on an unjust regime. You can busy yourself fighting to provide a living wage within a competitive small business and, that is, fighting inflation within a corporate market, even just asking your local rulers to sell you pot, legally of course. Busy yourself how you must.

Regardless of all these movement actions, no matter how critical, even militant, the liberal paradigm today envelopes our notions of wealth, this, all despite any ideas we may hold about fairness and equality. Any ideas for which you fight. Liberalism has always been the foundation of modern economic philosophy, and socialism arises from this very liberal foundation. Let’s check out some Marx here.

But Marx himself was very poor, and we all know how he ended up dying in starvation, unable to hold a job and targeted by a government backlash. Never mind his wife and children! Never mind Das Kapital!

Marx himself hated what the socialist utopians had done with his theories, proclaiming, “I am not a Marxist!” Let that one go down in the history books, for sure. That was his vehement response to their movements, struggles and labor strikes, plus their long and exhaustingly repetitive party meetings. This was all, then and there to them Marx hated, for the perfect market of social democracy. A utopia.

Yet Marx died not before absorbing himself in the liberal works of capitalist philosophers like Adam Smith and other so-called free thinkers from the Enlightenment Era. Marx studied these works for the last of his days, and he did this work all as an attempt to for his theoretical basis of exploitation to be recognized as a basic feature of labor markets within capitalism. Basically, he thought that when you work, you are making other people have more money than you. The boss makes more money than you, and the boss makes this money from you because you work. This is the very basic foundation of Marx’s theory of exploitation. Working makes the boss money. Here we may see from the Wealth of Nations a fundamental Marxist axiom, the very foundation of Marxist economics to this day:

“The value of any commodity, therefore, to the person who possesses it, and who means not to use or consume it himself, but to exchange it for other commodities, is equal to the quantity of labor which it enables him to purchase or command. Labor, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities. The real price of everything, what everything really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it.”

Marx, and then Rosa Luxemburg, when continuing what tradition that Adam Smith had started, labelled this concept Labor-Time, which is considered the labor which made something, and a useful labor which made something useful. If it is not useful, then it is not labor, and there is no Labor-Time. It will not be made then, and neither will it be traded on the market. We go to work for that very reason, to make money and survive, so society can continue to produce useful things due to our “Labor-Time”. And we work, we will work until capitalism has ended, and this work is founded on exploitation according to Marx. You work? Exploitation. Labor-Time creates value, that is, creates capital, and we divide this capital into variable capital, and capital to be invested, and Labor-Time is this capital’s value.

So, speaking of exploitation, calculating the Rate of Exploitation is easy! Just take the annual profit margin, that is to say, the net profit after expenses (PM), and divide it by the annual wages bill, that is to say, how much you paid your workers (WB), to get the Rate of Exploitation (RE). You will see that by doing this, you end up with a certain rate. The greater the net Profit Margin and the lesser the Wages bill, then the greater the Rate of Exploitation, and the lesser the net Profit Margin or the greater the Wages Bill, then the lesser the Rate of Exploitation.  Try it out using this equation:


Obviously, I’m not going to trouble myself for you not to put in the numbers yourself. Any numbers will show you the pattern. Don’t you think the bosses wouldn’t do this math? Or would they reject the notion of exploitation? Please don’t imagine a business council sitting around a giant table during their executive coffee break, just finished at a regional meeting, swapping their rates of exploitation for the last year with their buddies, and gloating over who got the best rate! Wouldn’t you be surprised?

This concept is a very Marxist concept, and we can thank Rosa Luxemburg for the math and equations. The obvious result, then, is that if the Rate of Exploitation within a business reaches less than one, don’t even think of zero yet, then what happens?

There’s no exploitation, right?

Pure liberalism. The workers themselves, no matter under self-employment, not even worker-owned or mutualist, would submit themselves to the market forces within this purely liberal framework of progress, then ultimately out-competed by those bigger and better than them. It doesn’t matter how worker-owned the market is, and highly co-operative. You got a better solution? Spreading the wealth, sharing the love, it is all within the very powerful framework of capital. Capitalism won’t recognize your exploitation equation, Rose Luxemburg, may you rest in peace, I suppose. Now, tell me, ask yourself, your friends and those you know, this one and only question:

What difference does it make?