Debate help

[phknrocket1k]

Me: Let's say that Mr. Moneybags wants to open a watch factory.

Each watch that Moneybags' company makes will sell on the market for $100. The watch's value is $100 because that is how much labor was put into it--$100 worth. By definition, if Moneybags wants to make a profit, he has to pay his workers less than what their labor is worth. So instead of paying them $100, he pays them $30. He keeps the other $70. This extra $70 that he pockets is called surplus value. By keeping it in the form of profits, Moneybags is exploiting his workers. [Marx, ""The Communist Manifesto" "Das Kapital, Vol. 1"


Capitalist: Ay! Misconceptions upon misconceptions!

Beyond what Mr. Run has already said about the difference between prices and input value, there is also the fact that labor is not the majority of the input value.

If Mr. Moneybags sold his watches for $100 and Mr. Commie says that the labor of the people making this watch was $100, Mr. Commie is assuming that the cost of the materials used to make this watch is $0.

Now, this may just be me, but I havent noticed watches make of air selling for $100 dollars lately. He is also assuming that there are no machines used in this process, so there are no costs for maintenance and no costs of machines to be recovered. So now these workers are making handcrafted air watches. Truly talented people indeed.

Lets just assume that $100 is what he is paid by the watch dealer that actually sells the watches, and that the dealer picks up the watches from the factory so that I don't have to get into a rant on transportation costs. Even in the event that Mr. Commie knows what he is talking about and the handmade air watches sell for $100 apeice, would the laborers be able to sell them? Keep the factory in order? Keep payroll updated? Keep shipments of air coming, so that the watches could be made? That is the job of the fourth element of production, entreprenureship: the capitalist. More than likely in that Mr. Moneybags situation, most of those $70 are going to pay for materials, watchmaking machines, logistics, rent on the factory, insurance, and any of a hundred other things. He then gets to keep the remainder as a reward from keeping the whole thing running smoothly. As Thomas Sowell said, profits are the cost of efficiency; in a moneyless economy the inefficiency is glaring and sickening.

Got any good response ideas?

[redstar2000]

This appears to be a silly question and has no relevance to this forum.

Moved to Opposing Ideologies.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[NovelGentry]

Even in the event that Mr. Commie knows what he is talking about and the handmade air watches sell for $100 apeice, would the laborers be able to sell them? Keep the factory in order? Keep payroll updated? Keep shipments of air coming, so that the watches could be made? That is the job of the fourth element of production, entreprenureship: the capitalist.

Well yes, the laborers are able to do so. In fact, in Argentina, there were several factories that were "expropriated" by the laborers, which were according to the capitalists, no longer capable of producing enough to keep them afloat. After taking these factories the workers continued to work, in some instances for equal pay, not only did they produce and sell, they did enough to begin giving back to their community. If I'm not mistaken, one of the places provided products and money to help a local hospital.

You may want to reference the movie "The Take" for this.

On your theoretical work, you're missing something. Say you have a factory that produces watches, made of materials that cost, as well as machines that cost. The cost of the materials and machines is say $50 per watch. The cost of the watch on the market is $100... If the factory is going to make any profit, the surplus value must be extracted from what it takes AFTER these necessary costs of production. Thus, the laborer is paid $30 and they make a surplus value of $20. If the production costs outside of labor cost $70, the factory owner cannot pay the workers $30 and remain profitable, so he either has to lower their pay, or attempt to increase the price of the watch. By increasing the price, he establishes that the value of their labor is still worth more to the consumer.

Either way you cut it, he has to make more than he pays out to stay profitable. In order to do that the value he sells the watch at must be more than the total value it cost to produce it for him. So you have both the static and the dynamic means of production, the static has a consistent cost, objective, the capitalist cannot change this. However, he can change the value of the subjective labor, the variable labor, that which comes from the people producing it. He could, lay off workers and demand others work harder to make up for it. Or he could simply lay them off and then rehire new workers who will work cheaper, while consumers are still going to pay the full value for the watch.

What is more interesting is the nature of money itself. It is a representation of labor. The worker makes it by exchanging his labor, and the capitalist makes it by extracting surplus value. In both forms it is representative of labor itself, although not necessarily the labor of the person who "owns it." The value of the watch on the market, $100, is this a value of labor. Specifically $100 worth of labor. What can $100 worth of labor get you? A watch... or, according to our previous example where $30 is paid to laborers, it could get you 3 watchmakers for whatever time scale we were using there. It's just some fun stuff to think about.

[NovelGentry]

Couldn't it have been moved to learning? Unless he's a troll, the post appears to be asking for help with a question he cannot wrap his head around, that apparently was offered in a debate.

[NovelGentry]

Also, you may want to keep in mind, which I attempted to explain but may not have clarified in my last post. The machines which the workers use to produce the watch, as well as the resources, are too brought about by the labor of others. In this sense, it is always "accumulated labor" -- so either way you cut it, there has to be exploitation somewhere along the line. It just so happens that in capitalism it has to happen at every point on the line, because every point on that line represents another portion of that production, done by a separate business, or at least a separate part of a business, which too has to be profitable in order to survive.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 01:06 AM
Well yes, the laborers are able to do so. In fact, in Argentina, there were several factories that were "expropriated" by the laborers, which were according to the capitalists, no longer capable of producing enough to keep them afloat.
It's like giving a machine gun to a cave-man. Sure, he might be able to work out how to shoot it and reload it, but he has no idea how it works, or how to repair it if it breaks or how to make another one. Living of stolen goods is never a good idea.

Cambodia- communist or not- is still struggling from having killed off its skilled labor.

[NovelGentry]

It's like giving a machine gun to a cave-man. Sure, he might be able to work out how to shoot it and reload it, but he has no idea how it works, or how to repair it if it breaks or how to make another one. Living of stolen goods is never a good idea.

Well no... it's not. The people who work on the machines, those who run the business, etc... they took it, the laborers. The capitalist who sits on his ass just sat there in meetings with the IMF trying to influence Argentina's government into taking it back for him.

A proper analogy would be if the caveman is hired to build and develop the machine gun, by some capitalist, then the capitalist goes away one day and the caveman continues to build and develop the machine gun. The capitalist says "you can't do this, I shut this business down." While the cave man grunts and orders new parts from the same place he's always been ordering parts from... mind you for the capitalist.

If you think the capitalists have some inherent understanding how to operate their own means of production, how to repair them if they break, and how to make another such means or a commodity from their means, you're probably living in a dream world.


Cambodia- communist or not- is still struggling from having killed off its skilled labor.

I'm not sure what killing of skilled labor has to do with killing of capitalists. Certainly you seem to be implying that the capitalist has some essential skill that is required to ensure the factory is operational...

http://www.labornotes.org/archives/2004/03/articles/i.html

...you're wrong.

[Professor Moneybags]

Well no... it's not. The people who work on the machines, those who run the business, etc... they took it, the laborers. The capitalist who sits on his ass just sat there in meetings with the IMF trying to influence Argentina's government into taking it back for him.

I don't know how we're defining "capitalist" here, but as far as I am concerned, a skilled laborer is a capitalist.


A proper analogy would be if the caveman is hired to build and develop the machine gun,

Devleop ? Your system has little to offer people who develop new things.


If you think the capitalists have some inherent understanding how to operate their own means of production, how to repair them if they break, and how to make another such means or a commodity from their means, you're probably living in a dream world.

Or rather, reality, as the utter failiure of practically every non-capitalist economy shows.


I'm not sure what killing of skilled labor has to do with killing of capitalists. Certainly you seem to be implying that the capitalist has some essential skill that is required to ensure the factory is operational...

Why do think the mass exodus of skilled labor happened in England during the 70's ? Skilled laborers go to where they are appreciated and where their talents will be rewarded. Not somewhere where they are declared "equal" to a road sweep.

[NovelGentry]

So you argument is basically to ignore amazing examples of worker controlled production, redefine capitalist as a skilled laborer, and evade the argument on whether or not the capitalist is necessary by turning it into an argument as to say... whether or not an electronics engineer wants to feel equal to a janitor.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 08:08 PM
Couldn't it have been moved to learning? Unless he's a troll, the post appears to be asking for help with a question he cannot wrap his head around, that apparently was offered in a debate.
When I got to the part about "watches made of air", I did assume it was a "troll post".

I apologize if anyone was offended. :P

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[NovelGentry]

Judging by his previous posts it appears he is actually trying to drive and understand the heart of the theoretical work, particularly the economic stuff, as well as the differentiations between some ideologies.

So while I wasn't and still am not offended, I'm still confused as to why it was thrown to OI.

As far as the watches made of air... well, not all of us are so good at articulating examples -- it seemed to me he was doing it more to simplify the argument so that it could be more easily interpreted and understood, and in return he would get a more direct answer.

Just a thought.

EDIT: One should also note, now that it's been tossed here we got capitalists changing the direction of the conversation. This doesn't really seem to suit any quest for knowledge, if it in fact is one, very well.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 03:45 PM
So you argument is basically to ignore amazing examples of worker controlled production,
Yeah, right.


redefine capitalist as a skilled laborer,

I redefined nothing. That is the definition I have always used.


whether or not an electronics engineer wants to feel equal to a janitor.

A very valid point. (Which you ignore/evade, as usual.)

[NovelGentry]

I redefined nothing. That is the definition I have always used.

Do you have your own language -- we'd probably be able to argue a lot better if there was some place that I could learn this language. This way here we wouldn't have these little misunderstandings.

In the language I speak a capitalist is one who is:

1. A supporter of capitalism.
2. An investor of capital in business, especially one having a major financial interest in an important enterprise.
3. A person of great wealth.


A very valid point. (Which you ignore/evade, as usual.)

I have never had a problem addressing such a point, I have many times in the past, and if you'd like me to do so again I can pull up a quote.


Especially when you consider that any idiot can provide [ labor ]. -- Professor Moneybags

It would appear from this quote, that "anyone" can do it... or maybe just only idiots. Certainly, however, I would think if idiots could do it that more intelligent people could do it as well. It may be a bit of an assumption but if "anyone" can do it, there is really nothing special about what one provides over another. So in what way are they not equal?

We cannot so easily say that a Janitor can do what an Electronics Engineer can do. That is obviously extremely dependent on a number of things. What we can quite easily say, and be right in doing so, is saying that the labor times provided by each can be the same. That the janitor can take so much out of his own day, and for that matter life, and contribute that, in equal amount to the electronics engineer.

But he should not be provided with the same benefits from society for doing so? Why? Because the EE has received an education? What if the Janitor worked throughout that period that the EE was acquiring his education? Has he not devoted himself to society equally? Because learning electronics engineering is more difficult? Doesn't that kind of depend on who it is? It may very well have been a walk in the park for the EE to learn such things, while it may have been very difficult for the Janitor to learn it, but it too may have been very difficult for the EE to do Janitorial work, while it's very easy for the Janitor.

For all the individuality that capitalists pretend capitalism embraces, they do a fair amount to make people strive not to be that way. Who wants to be a Janitor when they are shit upon and paid shit compared to an Electronics Engineer who is revered and paid possibly 6 digits? There's nothing nice about being an individual in capitalism, it does not serve you very well to do such.

[Professor Moneybags]

In the language I speak a capitalist is one who is:

1. A supporter of capitalism.
2. An investor of capital in business, especially one having a major financial interest in an important enterprise.
3. A person of great wealth.

All three or just one of the three ? (3 in particular is absurd. I know many persons of great wealth who are socialists and communists.) You can categorize just about anyone as a "capitalist" using these defintions.

But never mind that. You misunderstand what I am talking about. In case you hadn't noticed, I have no interest in the "rich vs poor" nonsense. Who owns what is irrelevent provided it hasn't been taken by force; it's those who do business by force that I oppose. "Capitalists", to use definition (2), do not exist for the sake of their employees, and their employees do not exist for the sake of the "capitalist. Both should interact on the basis of a voluntary, contractual agreement. You clearly have a problem with the idea of a contractual agreement, (reflecting your ethics).



I have never had a problem addressing such a point, I have many times in the past, and if you'd like me to do so again I can pull up a quote.

Go ahead.


It would appear from this quote, that "anyone" can do it... or maybe just only idiots. Certainly, however, I would think if idiots could do it that more intelligent people could do it as well. It may be a bit of an assumption but if "anyone" can do it, there is really nothing special about what one provides over another. So in what way are they not equal?

Oh, they're equal now ? Five minutes ago, laborers were a exploited class responsible for all aspects of production which justified the siezure of property.


We cannot so easily say that a Janitor can do what an Electronics Engineer can do. That is obviously extremely dependent on a number of things. What we can quite easily say, and be right in doing so, is saying that the labor times provided by each can be the same.

That presupposes the LTV to be true. Must we go over this again ?


But he should not be provided with the same benefits from society for doing so? Why?

Why should "society" provide anything ? Why not let the people he deals with decide instead ? Or would that result in some people realising that the EE has more useful, rarer skills, allowing the people to whom he sells his skills to decide what he's worth ? We can't have that. It's too much like free trade.


For all the individuality that capitalists pretend capitalism embraces, they do a fair amount to make people strive not to be that way. Who wants to be a Janitor when they are shit upon and paid shit compared to an Electronics Engineer who is revered and paid possibly 6 digits? There's nothing nice about being an individual in capitalism, it does not serve you very well to do such.

What the hell has this got to do with individualism ?

[T_SP]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 3 2005, 06:56 PM


But never mind that. You misunderstand what I am talking about. In case you hadn't noticed, I have no interest in the "rich vs poor" nonsense. Who owns what is irrelevent provided it hasn't been taken by force; it's those who do business by force that I oppose. "Capitalists", to use definition (2), do not exist for the sake of their employees, and their employees do not exist for the sake of the "capitalist. Both should interact on the basis of a voluntary, contractual agreement. You clearly have a problem with the idea of a contractual agreement, (reflecting your ethics).


Why do you make the assumption that the whole of a factory, or whatever, would come to a stand still without the greedy boss?? In a factory making cars, do you actually think that the boss has any clue what-so-ever how to work the machines, or make any ascpect of the cars? Chances are, no!

[NovelGentry]

Oh, they're equal now ? Five minutes ago, laborers were a exploited class responsible for all aspects of production which justified the siezure of property.

This is nitpicking. You know damn well that socialists/communists believe this equality to be a truth, while you do not. Which deems true for society is completely dependent on what system that society is upholding.


That presupposes the LTV to be true. Must we go over this again ?

Well no, the LTV is far more encompassing than this singular aspect. Note, I've not said anything about the value of them being the same, just the labor time itself. You can work the same amount of time as someone else.

It was you who established that "anyone could do it" and from that I cannot see why the labor time of one should be treated as any more valuable than the labor time of another.


Why should "society" provide anything ?

Because it is society that provides these things.


Why not let the people he deals with decide instead ? Or would that result in some people realising that the EE has more useful, rarer skills, allowing the people to whom he sells his skills to decide what he's worth ?

This is a far cry different from what we've heard before. If they decide what he is worth, I'm not really sure how you can consider this to be a mutual endeavor. How does he decide what he is worth? By going to someone else to decide what he is worth? That doesn't really sound mutual, hardly equally so.

It's like telling me, here are your options: apples, oranges, bananas. I can't really say that I want strawberries, can I? You give me the option to pick, but I have no say in what my options are. How can this be considered mutual?


What the hell has this got to do with individualism ?

Is what you want to do not very dependent on your individual likes/dislikes/interests? I'm not really capable of having such things if what I want to do does not provide for me economically. My economic and productive/creative aspects may also infringe on my social acceptability. For example, whether or not women find me attractive may very well depend on these economic conditions.

Here it is difficult to say one is forced to give up their individual will for necessity, but certainly there is coercion.

[Professor Moneybags]

It was you who established that "anyone could do it" and from that I cannot see why the labor time of one should be treated as any more valuable than the labor time of another.

Who declared you dictator so that you can decide what someon's labor time is worth ? Unless you happen to be the one involved in the contract, it's not up to you to make this desicion.



Why should "society" provide anything ?

Because it is society that provides these things.

Society doesn't provide anything. It's individuals.


This is a far cry different from what we've heard before.

You haven't been paying attention, that's why.


If they decide what he is worth, I'm not really sure how you can consider this to be a mutual endeavor.

Then what do you consider a mutual endevour ? A worker demanding a blank cheque at the point of a gun ?


How does he decide what he is worth ?

He decides what is in his best interests. If he decides wrongly, it's his loss.


By going to someone else to decide what he is worth? That doesn't really sound mutual, hardly equally so.

It is mutual. How is it not ?


It's like telling me, here are your options: apples, oranges, bananas. I can't really say that I want strawberries, can I?

You can't have more than you're worth, if that's what you mean. Is this the source of your problem with capitalism ? People won't pay you $50000 and hour for picking up garbage because there is no one ?

I've said this before- the problem you have isn't with capitalism, you just want to override desicion making by dictating the terms of transaction to whoever you deal with.


You give me the option to pick, but I have no say in what my options are. How can this be considered mutual?

You don't seem to get this "trade" thing, do you ? You can have what the other man is willing to offer, or you can refuse his offer and go elsewhere.


Is what you want to do not very dependent on your individual likes/dislikes/interests? I'm not really capable of having such things if what I want to do does not provide for me economically. My economic and productive/creative aspects may also infringe on my social acceptability. For example, whether or not women find me attractive may very well depend on these economic conditions.

Here it is difficult to say one is forced to give up their individual will for necessity, but certainly there is coercion.

I'm not surprised you see coercion; you have the mindset of a spoilt brat who sees other people's right to refuse to associate/trade/deal with you to be "coercion". I sure hope you don't deal with women like this.

[NovelGentry]

Who declared you dictator so that you can decide what someon's labor time is worth ? Unless you happen to be the one involved in the contract, it's not up to you to make this desicion.

Well, the problem with your response is that you bolded something of a "subquote" and took it out of it's original context. I did say "and from that I cannot see why." From what? From your assertion that any idiot can do it. If anyone can do it, would you not agree that no one person's time towards it could be considered more valuable than another?

Outside of that context, let me note that I don't pretend to be able to judge what someone's labor time is worth, that is why I believe we should use time itself as a measure of that value.

If someone is willing to spend 7 hours working on a small wooden box, he obviously placed 7 hours worth of value into that, if he placed anything less, he wouldn't have continued after say... 5 hours... if that is all he thought it was worth.

By using the time itself, you remove the position of anyone to decide how much that labor is worth except for the laborer. Furthermore, it is not so subjective that it would allow anyone else decide and extract further value. It is extremely measurable, and thus transparent to all, and can be understood by all.


Society doesn't provide anything. It's individuals.

We've gone over this before. This type of thinking is extremely contradictory to the nature of production and you know it. If you truly want to put the productive responsibility on individuals as separate and individual producers, then you should not be surprised when everything you know about modern industry and technology dies off.


You haven't been paying attention, that's why.

Quite the contrary, I've been paying far too much attention, this is what allows me see things the way I do.


Then what do you consider a mutual endevour ? A worker demanding a blank cheque at the point of a gun ?

Why do you bother asking if you're so ready to assume my answer. I don't consider a mutual endeavor to be possible under capitalism. It doesn't make sense with how it is constructed... certainly, if they have equal bargaining power, and thus the endeavor is 100% mutual... it would be extremely difficult for the capitalist to make any profit. There may be some who would be "accepting" of private property who would consider a mutual endeavor to be one that splits profits 50/50 between capitalist and worker. That is, they are his machines, but the labor is that of the workers. They are then both dependent upon one another as you say and no one deserves more than another.


He decides what is in his best interests. If he decides wrongly, it's his loss.

Well generally speaking when your options are: "Work for some asshole giving you less than you're worth or die," you'll probably choose to work. And I must agree, the option of death is not in his best interest. The problem is, he doesn't really decide what's in his best interest, he gets to decide from the choices already decided for him. Just like I don't really get a chance to decide who I think should be president, I get the chance to decide who I think should be president out of a select few individuals who have already been decided -- primarily on the basis of how much money they have.


It is mutual. How is it not ?

In the same way the elections are not. If your options for work are Burger King, McDonalds, or Wendy's... well, come on, I don't see anyone who would have picked those options if he had mutual say. But there are people who work at these places... why? They decided they were gonna go work at Wendy's for 5 bucks an hour? Or was that what was in their best interest? No doubt it was.


You can't have more than you're worth, if that's what you mean. Is this the source of your problem with capitalism ? People won't pay you $50000 and hour for picking up garbage because there is no one ?

I don't expect them to. I'd rather have it where people don't pay me... I'd rather have it where there is nothing to pay.


I've said this before- the problem you have isn't with capitalism, you just want to override desicion making by dictating the terms of transaction to whoever you deal with.

Well no, if that were the case I wouldn't very well be fighting for a place where things like money, subjective value, and bosses don't exist. I'd be fighting to become the boss.


You don't seem to get this "trade" thing, do you ? You can have what the other man is willing to offer, or you can refuse his offer and go elsewhere.

But you're missing something from the real world example. There is no elsewhere to go, and if you don't get this "thing" from him, you die.


I'm not surprised you see coercion; you have the mindset of a spoilt brat who sees other people's right to refuse to associate/trade/deal with you to be "coercion". I sure hope you don't deal with women like this.

I have no problem if people refuse to associate/trade/deal with me. I have a problem with the fact that those who would refuse, are my only choices. More, I have a problem with how they got there.

My options with women are not usually "Make her happy or die." I've never lost a girlfriend and said, "Shit, I need to get a new girlfriend or I'm gonna lose my house, my car... won't be able to pay for school... won't have food."

[Professor Moneybags]

Outside of that context, let me note that I don't pretend to be able to judge what someone's labor time is worth, that is why I believe we should use time itself as a measure of that value.

If someone is willing to spend 7 hours working on a small wooden box, he obviously placed 7 hours worth of value into that, if he placed anything less, he wouldn't have continued after say... 5 hours... if that is all he thought it was worth.

We're back to the LTV problem again. Is someone else can make boxes twice as fast, are his boxes half as valuable ?


By using the time itself, you remove the position of anyone to decide how much that labor is worth except for the laborer.

The laborer already decides how much his labor is worth- he makes a bargain with the person making the purchase. He is then free to take it or leave it.


Furthermore, it is not so subjective that it would allow anyone else decide and extract further value. It is extremely measurable, and thus transparent to all, and can be understood by all.

How is the laborer's opinion lany less subjective than anyone else's ?


We've gone over this before. This type of thinking is extremely contradictory to the nature of production and you know it. If you truly want to put the productive responsibility on individuals as separate and individual producers, then you should not be surprised when everything you know about modern industry and technology dies off.

It didn't yesterday, it hasn't today and it won't tommorrow. Who do you think is responsible for a laborer's productivity level other than himself ?


Quite the contrary, I've been paying far too much attention, this is what allows me see things the way I do.

Then why are you insisting that something is "new" when I've been saying it all along ?


Why do you bother asking if you're so ready to assume my answer. I don't consider a mutual endeavor to be possible under capitalism.

You ask a question and then immediately answer it yourself.


It doesn't make sense with how it is constructed... certainly, if they have equal bargaining power,

They already do.


Well generally speaking when your options are: "Work for some asshole giving you less than you're worth or die,"

Everyone already works for the price they're worth. Just like every country already has the government it deserves.


you'll probably choose to work. And I must agree, the option of death is not in his best interest.

Death is a metaphysical phenomenon that occurs when one does nothing productive to futher one's life. It is not a capitalist plot to enslave people.


The problem is, he doesn't really decide what's in his best interest, he gets to decide from the choices already decided for him.

The trouble is, acting outside of those choices tends to involve initiating force against someone else. If you can justify that, then you can justify pretty much anything.


But you're missing something from the real world example. There is no elsewhere to go, and if you don't get this "thing" from him, you die.

Too bad. Metaphysical reality sucks, doesn't it ? It wins every time, though.


I have no problem if people refuse to associate/trade/deal with me. I have a problem with the fact that those who would refuse, are my only choices.

Or you're going to do what ? "Provide me with a living or I'll kill you ?". Is that the point where you start holding their unwillingness to provide you with "choices" as proof that their ownership of property must therefore be illegitmate ?

[Publius]

Would the LTV change at all, if the bargaining were different?

Say, for example, there are millions of capitalists and only one worker, (An unrealistic scenario, but one that rather mirrors yours).

This worker has all the leverage in bargaining, and can name his own price, effectively.

Would he still be 'exploited' if he were payed less than value of his labor?

Would he be exploited if he were payed exactly equal to the value of his labor?

Would he be exploited if he were payed more than the value of his labor?

Tell me, if the worker had the 'leverage' of bargaining in capitalism, would the 'capitalist' still be the exploiter, and the laboror, the 'exploited', even though it was the capitalist who had no power?

Under this hypothetical, the capitalist could own the means of production, 'exploit' the worker and take excess value, but it would be wholly dependant on the whims of the laboror.

Essentially, is your labeling of capitalists as evil fair, when if forces conspired in a wholly different manner, it would be these very same capitalists that were 'oppressed' by capitalism?

And how can something be stolen if it's traded or given away? If I say to you "Here, take my [stapler]" I could not say you stole it.

But if I say "Here, take my [labor]" I could say you're exploiting me and stealing my labor from me, even I made it out like a bandit on the deal and the capitalist was poor and destititute?