Marxism, short note

Marxism isn't incorrect when it defines the overdetermining logic of capitalism to tend towards declining rates of profit. We can see this, and we can see it in the behavior of major capitalist investors, constantly seeking new investment in morally despicable settings (most obviously in the current day, sweatshops in China).
But this alone, this exploitation of undervalued labor, couldn't account for qualitative increases in living standards, or real innovations in technology that do more or do otherwise than replace paid labor. And such innovations do occur, especially when they are tailored towards expansion of use by the customer. (In other words, when the product is at once a consumer good and a capital good).
The question then is how to account for these sources of innovation in a sphere autonomous to conventional capitalist logic of increasing the rate of exploitation through political intervention.
This is the failing of the Marxist framework of analysis, and the chief advantage of the anarchist. For while the anarchist frame has not succeeded in articulating a coherent, thorough analysis of this autonomous logic, it does at least maintain it as a perpetual question and intuitive point of reference and exploration. This is what we can offer, potentially.
It is at the same time that aspect of the existing economic organization of the world that we can develop towards a concrete transformation of the world, without slogans, without ideology and rhetoric.

aside1: the moralism of Marxist action and theory might have proved a bit too much of a weakness, or rather the failure to deploy moral arguments at the right levels. if the chief failing of the system is in fact a falling rate of profit due to reduced exploitation of labor, it makes little sense to morally damn every investor for seeking higher returns on investment in the absence of any better logic. do you want a 3% return or a 7% return? well, 7%, unless there's a good reason otherwise. without pointing out the good reasons...
it might also explain the greater willingness of larger investors to accept more liberal organization, bound to lower rates of abuse- they have so much invested that the long-term stability and growth that go along with these lower rates of abuse afford them far greater wealth that short bursts of high returns.

aside2: so how does one note returns based on genuine innovation or improvement against simple exploitation? might there always be a steady possibility of a 2% return, something small but constant? how do you tell the difference? maybe wolff knows by now, and maybe it's worth asking him. is there a different way to get returns on innovation, and is there a real way to differentiate in terms of investment besides simple SRI rules? can you tell if returns are based on some actual contribution to society, whatever that might mean, rather than simple exploitation?

[examples: the car. the bicycle. prosumer goods in general. goods that enhance the powers of action of their consumers]