It was indeed about time to split this into a new thread.
Now, to continue the discussion...
Exploitation IS a problem: That is when workers are paid less than the value their work adds. It is considered normal in a capitalist economy though.
Of course the enterpreneur reaps profit. It is the owner who takes risk in starting a business venture. Socialists and communists imagine there is no risk in an enterprise, therefore the workers should get ALL the income. That is, frankly, pure ignorance. It ignores the fact that businesses can and do fail, so there is a risk premium to any investment in a company.
Yes, there is risk, but the question is: who really takes the risk? I'm a bit tired of this "risk needs to be rewarded" rhetoric.
In a small start-up, or when someone is self-employed in a small company with a perhaps a few other workers, then sure, the business owner takes risks and I'm fine with rewarding them with potential profits.
In marxism, not all companies are per definition run by capitalists. The self-employed and their small companies are typically not run by capitalists, because essentially anyone can create those: no real capital is needed for that. It's a different story when you want to, say, start a new company that produces cars, airplanes, or nuclear power. There's no way you can do that without access to significant capital.
In large companies, run by capitalists, who takes the risk? When a large company announces mass layoffs, it's usually because the big shareholders (aka the capitalists) were pushing for it, and typically even just the announcement causes the company value on the stock market to go up. It's not the shareholders who take the risk: they just demand a certain return on investment and if the company does not meet that target, they move elsewhere. For small shareholders there is of course an element of risk involved, but for the large ones, there is not that much risk involved really -- they can afford to do essentially statistical expectation maximization and for them the
law of large numbers applies.
So who really takes the risk? Not the shareholders. Also not the CEO and the other company leaders: the top managers get paid well, regardless of whether their company fails or not -- they tend to get paid best when they fire lots of people and when they get fired themselves. If they screw up, they are called courageous stress-resistant crisis managers and it becomes just another bullet on their CV; they get a nice golden parachute and typically immediately find a new job (another company to screw up).
It's the workers who really take the risk: they need their job to live, and when their company restructures or fails, they are the big losers -- not the top managers, not the shareholders. After mass layoffs, it can be very hard for the workers to find a new job since they are saturating the local job market and often only have experience and skills in an industrial sector that is not doing well.
In the very big companies (e.g. big banks) we now also have the phenomenon of "too big to fail", meaning essentially that whatever risk they take, if all goes well, they get the profits, while if things go wrong, we (the taxpayers) all pay the debts. Privatized profits, nationalized risk.
Communists are simply children: imbecelic, ignorant.
If you are still claiming today, after we've had Lehman Brothers etc etc, that mega-profits are justified by the courageous risk-taking of our captains of industry, then I'm not very impressed by your accusation of ignorance.
Also, are you implying that children can be characterized as imbeciles? Not only is your terminology outdated, but that is also obviously wrong: children, just like adults, by definition have an average IQ of 100, and by definition only about 0.1% of them are imbeciles, that is, have an IQ in the range 21-50. By the way, you misspelled the word "imbecilic".
