Wage Labor and Exploitation

Another detailed description of the wage system can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDEx18aK-xk

Typical apologists for capitalism make semi-false statements about how wage labor is voluntary and agreed upon by both employer and employee and how it benefits them both. They say that if the worker does not desire to work for a boss, he can start his own business. While this may be true in the long run, it is not how it starts.
In the capitalist system, the means of production (factories, land, mines, workplaces, etc.) are owned privately by a class or classes farther up the hierarchy. The members of these classes are called capitalists, although the middle class can in some cases be in the same positions.

In order to start your own business you must have sufficient means of producing the product you will sell. Where can you get means of production from? A capitalist is the only choice. You must pay the capitalist for a sufficient means of production to start your own business. Where in the world can you get the money to do so? There are four choices: you can work for a wage, you can rob someone and behave like a mob boss, you can take out a loan, or pay workers to build you means of production. Now in terms of logic, a loan and wage labor do have big differences, however, they are using the same principle: a capitalist grants a means of production to another individual, and in return he expects payment; once both have been satisified, the relationship can be brought to an end.
In reality, wage labor and loans are not that different in their basic logic. So I will treat them as the same thing. What this means is that in order for one person to become self employed, he must first exert labor for a capitalist. Taking into account inheritance, the individual can obtain money from his/her family, but soemone in the family must have worked for a wage in order to receive the money.
Paying workers to build means of production for you is really the same as wage labor.
So wage labor is a necessity in order for a capitalist society to start. That is, capitalism starts as a 'work for a boss or starve' deal. This may change over time as inheritance becomes the dominant form of starting income, but the means to this end are far from just. If you tell a girl to love you or starve, can you and the girl expect such a relationship to get better? The relationship falls apart. That is what happened to capitalism; the government grew big (yes, it might not have been directly the fault of capitalism, but the system allowed for it to happen), corporations started using the gov't to crush competition and poverty actually increased. The relationship is falling apart.

Exploitation in wage labor
----------------------------------

Now we go on to explain how wage labor is exploitation. Let us take a simple business relationship and look at its parts. We have the capitalist(s); we also have the workers who built the factor(y/ies); we have the workers who work in the factory; we have the power plant workers and owners who provide electricity, we have the truck drivers who drive the mass produced products to the retailer and/or store; we have the store clerks; and we can have various other institutions to which the business is in debt (banks, other businesses, lost investments, etc.).
Now, let us examine where exactly does this relationship go wrong. Now, we assume capitalist who owns the business has chosen the fourth option of paying workers to build factories. Now, in order to pay them, he must have money. He gets this money by selling the products which the workers in the factry made. There is no problem here and everyone mentioned above gets paid the full product of their labor.

There is, however one question? Where does the capitalist gain so much profits from? If everyone is geting the full product of their labor, then how come the capitalist accumulates so much profit? One way to do this is to deduct from the workers' pay by using his ownership of capital to justify that. Now capital by itself does not produce; it can only be used to produce. If the capitalist demands payment for capital then he really demands something for nothing or demanding that the workers pay him for the privilege to work. This is not justice in any realistic way you look at it. The capitalist can also demand payment for his ideas. Now, the most prominent market anarchists were against intellectual property; they must have had a good reason to hold that position. Personally, I do believe that a person should get something for his ideas, but the amount of profit he accumulates in modern capitalism for that reason is insane.
He gets the most out of the business, hence why he is on top ot the hierarchy. That is how a personality cult works. Just because you have come up with a great idea does not mean that you should get the most out of the business relationship. Stalin came up with a lot of ideas (most of them horrible) and he came on top. Heck, some dictators had good ideas and they came on top. But ideas are not an excuse unless the very person who came up with them labors along with his employees, which is not the case in the majority of situations.

There is one excuse that capitalists use all the time: risks. The capitalist risks all his money, therefore he should get profits. It is true that a capitalist risks all of his money, but does that really justify profiteering? I do not beleive it does. Take a window washer on a tall building for example. If that window washer makes a big mistake he falls and dies; if the capitalist makes a big mistake, he loses all his wealth. Yes the capitalist may starve, but unlike the window washer, he has the chance to try to get up. The window washer does not get that chance. It is true that the window washer is risking his life because of his nature and his choices, but the same applies to the capitalist and his wealth. The window washer makes a much greater risk than the capitalist. By the logic of capitalist risk-taking, the window washer ought to be paid a higher wage than the capitalist. I don't know a lot about economics, but that would be detrimental, no?
The capitalists are always jabbering about how they make profits and capital and the window washer does not. But if the window washer was paid higher than the capitalists, he would be making profits and capital. They are using circular-illogic. The capitalists take into account that the washer is paid higher and at the same time assume that they are getting paid higher. This is completely illogical thinking and it self-detonates.
I cannot see any way that the capitalist can make significant profit out of a 100% just wage system.