What is profit?

The logic of a reformist position must be the possibility of building capital given existing economic structures, i.e. of deriving "profit" without exploitation, and progressively taking over the economic world through this activity.

Now we see in Marx a very coherent systemic analysis for describing the nature of profit. It is based in surplus value, and this value is equivalent to unpaid labor, i.e. labor that is being essentially exploited, undervalued. I find it impossible to deny that this is a constant economic reality, and that major sector of capitalism are dependent upon this to reap high profits. We see in industry after industry a dependence upon clearly undervalued labor, meaning labor undertaken by a marginalized class or caste without political power to press for the prevailing wage of a work. This isn't what Marx means of course, but I think in some way there is a connection. Marx suggests that we might see a capitalism constantly thrown into crisis assuming rising rates of pay of workers. Political agitation by undervalued classes leads to an increase in the cost of labor, encouraging investment in labor-saving technology. Because surplus value is created by human labor, not machine costs, this drive ultimately cripples capital. However, one "out" is utilizing a reserve army of the unemployed, essentially marginalized groups. We see this constantly throughout the 20th century and before, and we see it today in the press for low-wage manufacturing.

I think we could see in a variety of industries and their history evidence to support this type of theory, that surplus value is ultimately stolen labor.

So the question, then, is if there is any other way to make profit, and hence to create genuine growth.

I'm not sure at all how to resolve this yet. On the one hand, Marx's argument is almost tautological. But it happens to very much resemble real social history.

A few points to consider.

It might be the case that Chayanov is correct, correct across all types of economies. That the principles he identifies as "peasant economics" are present universally- and that contemporary order simply regiments and concentrates them. In this case, we might see the extraction of surplus-value as equivalent to the self-exploitation characteristic of peasant economics. The only difference is that it is accomplished for the aggregate, taken away as "profit" or interest or rent. As surplus-value.

So we see then no contradiction in a program of social ownership of the means of production in a decentralized way. It is functionally peasant economics. The surplus is still made, i.e. self-exploitation occurs. It is simply deliberate, "conscious," undertaken with the intention of deciding collectively the use of the surplus. In this sense, there is no foundational disadvantage to a socially viable firm, because all we're doing is changing the point of control of exploitation. It's simply a political shift, but a deeply significant one. The scale is irrelevant in one sense- the mechanism is the same for a single proprietor, a factory, an investment pool, a nation, a global pool. The question is simply where is the point of exploitation and who decides the use of the surplus thus created.

This allows a very autonomist reading of the situation- the idea of Chayanov's self-exploitation imbedded in any moment of labor.

Two concerns.

What is the difference between technique and technology, meaning how do we read changes/improvements to the application of labor? Is this distinct? Is management technique labor or capital, and does it create surplus value?

Alongside this question, is it possible to create a permanent revolution in technique that allows continuous creation of surplus? Say, through consumer/capital goods, bricolage goods, prosumer organization? Goods that take on dual roles as capital tools (that then shift human labor and activity simply through use, without pay)? What does this create, a constant self-exploitation that allows the constant creation of value?

Is any unpaid activity, say in leisure time, exploitation? Say I volunteer my labor in my freetime, under conditions suitable to me, without pay and for enjoyment. This is a sort of exploitation, but for whose benefit? It isn't controlled by the market, by an employer. So what is it? Maybe this is a sort of foundation, collective self-exploitation as a source of value.

And maybe the "trick" is to create mechanisms for thise to transfer smoothly and cleanly into cooperative structures, shared structures. For a community of practice to become an economic agent without alienation. Forming coops out of clubs, essentially...