• Tachanka [comrade/them]
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It's not saying much but I'm glad they still at least admit "profit equals revenue minus costs" because I often see class collaborationist bozos try to argue that "workers receive their fair share of the profit" by redefining "profit" as "the revenue split between workers and owners for their respective contributions." Through this sleight of hand they try to make it out that the owners contribute value to to the commodities by "taking on risk" and "creating jobs" and "building a workplace" and that this somehow justifies the passive accumulation of wealth by the ruling class on the basis of their private ownership of the means of production. The revenue is split (very unevenly) between worker and owners, not the profit. the profit is what is gained by paying workers less than their work is worth. workers wages are considered a "cost" subtracted from the revenue. the profit is what is left over after the "cost" of the workers wages, upkeep of means of production, etc.

    • usernamesaredifficul [he/him]
      ·
      1 year ago

      you actually need someone to understand that profit equals revenue minus cost in order to have a capitalist system

      • Tachanka [comrade/them]
        ·
        1 year ago

        right, they'll always understand it at the back of their minds, but they'll often try to conceal that reality under some kind of false pretense of workers and owners "sharing profits" rather than workers wages being part of the "costs" that they fundamentally see as decreasing their profits. The goal of the capitalist is to minimize the difference between revenue and profit by paying workers as little as possible, but they are loathe to admit this publicly since that gives away the game.