I'm going to double-reply to you just to try explaining it in a different way. I can see how my replies aren't making it clear enough.
The labor theory of value works under capitalism or socialism/communism. It's the same stuff. When Marx did Kapital, he cited that idea from Adam Smith. So we don't even have to speak like we're talking about two different systems. It would work like it works now. The difference is who gets the surplus value.
The company you work for makes factories. It takes in raw materials, it adds labor, and produces factories. The value of a factory is higher than the materials and labor, probably. As a factory is more useful than pile of bricks and a bunch of guys standing around. Your labor makes that value possible. So when you produce a factory, you're generating value. It's assumed there is a buyer for your factories. It's true that if there is nobody to buy your factories, then the factories don't have a value. Because things have value to buyers as well as producers. But this assumes someone is buying your factories.
You produce the factory and then someone buys it. They buy it at the value that includes your labor and the raw materials. But since you're in a factory factory, you can produce far more factories. So you produce 100 factories. After 10 factories, your own factory is paid for. The raw materials you used are paid for. Your wages are paid for. There's leftover money that was created by everyone's labor.
Under capitalism, the owner gets it. You do get paid, it's just a small amount of the value you produced. Under the ideal economic system, you and your coworkers would get most if not all of it. The owner would get the small amount.
So all the stuff in your factory, including the factory and the machines are paid for now. Whoever made your machines was already paid. Whoever buys your factories is in the exact same situation you are. Their company will operate like yours. Your money doesn't take from them. Passing on the cost of raw materials and the cost of labor isn't the same kind of wage-theft that the owners of the companies engage in. At the end of the day labor and raw materials are just part of the cost. But the socialist argument isn't about that. It's about the surplus value created by your labor. Not that it costs money to buy raw materials and do labor on them so the worker down the line is actually paying for that out of their wages.
Kapital wasn't just about critiquing capitalism, it was also about economics period. Which is why we can talk about the labor theory of value outside of capitalism and how it works with other economic systems. Now you can have an economic system where raw materials are "free" in the sense that the government pays people to collect and distribute them to companies. Then those companies use the "free" materials to make stuff. And then those goods are given to the public for "free". But really, the labor aspect is still there. And there would still be a discrepancy of surplus value unless the labor was adequately compensated. As in their material needs were completely met.
I'm going to double-reply to you just to try explaining it in a different way. I can see how my replies aren't making it clear enough.
The labor theory of value works under capitalism or socialism/communism. It's the same stuff. When Marx did Kapital, he cited that idea from Adam Smith. So we don't even have to speak like we're talking about two different systems. It would work like it works now. The difference is who gets the surplus value.
The company you work for makes factories. It takes in raw materials, it adds labor, and produces factories. The value of a factory is higher than the materials and labor, probably. As a factory is more useful than pile of bricks and a bunch of guys standing around. Your labor makes that value possible. So when you produce a factory, you're generating value. It's assumed there is a buyer for your factories. It's true that if there is nobody to buy your factories, then the factories don't have a value. Because things have value to buyers as well as producers. But this assumes someone is buying your factories.
You produce the factory and then someone buys it. They buy it at the value that includes your labor and the raw materials. But since you're in a factory factory, you can produce far more factories. So you produce 100 factories. After 10 factories, your own factory is paid for. The raw materials you used are paid for. Your wages are paid for. There's leftover money that was created by everyone's labor.
Under capitalism, the owner gets it. You do get paid, it's just a small amount of the value you produced. Under the ideal economic system, you and your coworkers would get most if not all of it. The owner would get the small amount.
So all the stuff in your factory, including the factory and the machines are paid for now. Whoever made your machines was already paid. Whoever buys your factories is in the exact same situation you are. Their company will operate like yours. Your money doesn't take from them. Passing on the cost of raw materials and the cost of labor isn't the same kind of wage-theft that the owners of the companies engage in. At the end of the day labor and raw materials are just part of the cost. But the socialist argument isn't about that. It's about the surplus value created by your labor. Not that it costs money to buy raw materials and do labor on them so the worker down the line is actually paying for that out of their wages.
Kapital wasn't just about critiquing capitalism, it was also about economics period. Which is why we can talk about the labor theory of value outside of capitalism and how it works with other economic systems. Now you can have an economic system where raw materials are "free" in the sense that the government pays people to collect and distribute them to companies. Then those companies use the "free" materials to make stuff. And then those goods are given to the public for "free". But really, the labor aspect is still there. And there would still be a discrepancy of surplus value unless the labor was adequately compensated. As in their material needs were completely met.