Tristan
I find what you say to be so confused and illogical.

You haven’t established that
• employment is exploitative in the first place, except by reference to cartoonish Marxist caricatures
• there is any “violence” in Houllebecq’s, or anyone’s, working to earn some extra income
• there is any “violence” in the consumers buying things they want
(that disposes of your Marxist premises)
• there is anything but arbitrary prejudice in your distinction that dividends earned by lower-paid employee capitalists are “earned” while divided earned by higher-paid employee capitalists are “unearned”
• foregoing instant grat now to undertake the risk of higher production later is undeserving of the income accruing to it from people’s voluntary payments
• there is any justice in your idea that people have a right to force others to work for them
• there is any reason why human society could or should be based on material equality
• there is any reason why people should not pay for the goods and services they want
• and if they can’t, why provision for the less fortunate should not be by voluntary means.

The only thing consistent about your arguments is your consistent recourse to garbled Marxist fallacies that were refuted over a century ago. Not even you will defend the logical consequence of your view that private production is evil, and state confiscations are morally virtuous and economically superior – that the state should take over all production. But when your fallacies are pointed out, you just respond with another welter of Marxist fallacies.

You don’t represent “social connectedness” - you stand for physically attacking people who won’t submit to having their freedom and property violated, based on your garbled illogical belief that to do so makes society better.

Honestly, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel.

Rather than trot out these articles which assume the labour theory of value, I would rather you do an article proving and defending it against its critics, because I don’t think you can, and everything you say depends on it.

Peter;

Firstly - arguing about the labour theory of value can be complex; There are people who argue that entrepreneurs contribute significantly to value with their initiative, vision, expertise. This is more likely the case with small business; but can be the case with large corporations as well. (eg: Bill Gates)

But the question then becomes one of whether the return on their initiative etc can be out of proportion. And even if investors deserve a fair return, should such investments involve *infinite* returns? That's where I depart from the conventional view; And I also think there is an issue with the *labour share* of the economy contracting further and further. I think the answer is to *compensaate* workers with collective capital share...

It's also relevant here that often investors are not leading with vision, management, innovation. Often the very rich depend on intermediatories to do all the work for them...

Finally I believe in a democratic mixed economy. I think Feher and Heller had a good point when they argued about 'dictatorship over needs'. Planning and centralisation can defininitely go too far, and there is a significant and enduring role for markets. To paraphrase - markets give consumers to opportunity to determine their own needs structures with relative flexibility.

But sometimes the costs of purely private competition/markets etc are too great. (eg: duplication of cost structures with essential infrastructure like in communications - hence NBN should be a natural public monopoly...) And failure to provide for minority interests is a form of 'market failure'. Public enterprise can also spur competition where there would otherwise be collusion. And the public sector can provide progressive cross-subsidy and a return on investment than can be diverted into social programs.