: Actually, no-
: 1:The commodity is sold at, or around, its value.Its sold at the economically efficient price, a Rolls Royce has a margin much higher than Tescos supersaver bread. Thats its 'value' - precisely the amount people are willing to spend on the product. Houses, for instance, don't magically gain intrinsic value - they gain saleable vlaue becuse people want to give more money for one. Scarce resources and all that. Havent we done all this price mechanism before?
: 2:The capitalists make their profit through the difference between the value paid to the worker for their commodified labour power, and the value of the work done.
Between the cost of production (including labor amongst all capital and other costs) and its saleable price. If people dont want it there is no profit, if people willingly pay masses for it there is large profit. if workers were constantly becoming poorer by being 'skimmed' then there would be an economic spiral with less and less production, not more and more (the consumers would have less than the value of what they bought- ie they couldnt afford to buy what was produced, the companies would dwindle away - the process by which this does not occur is that wealth is created dynamically, not stolen form a pre-set amount)
: 3:The state comes and take a share of that profit.
take, being the operative word.
: : But be in a better bargaining position for greater contractual agreements with the wealthier companies (and your higher income would generate more demand and more employment, and more opportunities to compete yourself and become self employed)
: Ii doubt that, without regulation fixed capital costs, such as safety and environmental safe-guards, would go out the window.
Why? Because all people are naturally bad/stupid and would support unsafe, damaging products over good ones? Seems a low opinion of man.
: They do as they're told...
You really seem to think that companies run countries dont you? I think its more of a deadly marriage between govt and the monsters they have grown (ie not 'companies', but some specific companies)
: Without the permission of the state employers cannot exploite a workorce, its one of the functions of the nation state- Britain has a monopoly on British workers....
You'll need some strong evidence to support that assertion - what do you imagine would happen in a stateless society and why exactly?
: 1:They need a state to settle disputes (legal disputes etc.)
Do they? What of entirely civil (private) courts? they are feasible.
: 2:They need a state to control the workforce and manage poverty.
Why?
: 3;they need a state to strike down rentiers and others (like unions) who would seek to reduce their profits.
Hence it is state which introduces minimum wages, working conditions, weekly hours, hiring and firing regulations etc? Doesnt fit with reality.
: 4:They need a state to gaurantee their money.
They would do better with private banks. Observe what happened when UK and US started interfering more and more with money supply and decided to abandon the gold standard.
: 5:they need a state as a military wing against foriegn capitalists.
As everyone seems to be a capitalist to you I simply couldnt answer!
: 6:They need a state to ensure that necessary social legislation falls on all employers, and some do not take advantage of low standards to get ahead in competition. This is so that the workforce remains compliant.
The brainless masses again? I think its empty vote winning by supporting interest groups over eachother and creaming votes from as many as possible. Although arbitrary standards do favour the large 'connected' companies over competitors, hence the govt creates behemoths which would otherwise be pruned (or made efficient) by competition.
: They hate it- but its necessary for them...
No, it may be necessary for favor seeking protected businesses due to their incompetence in competing with others - it is not 'necessary' for producers as such.
