Walk out to the sidewalk. You see a grocery store, a sandwich shop, a gas station, and so on. Did those businesses sprout up from the ground like mushrooms?
The idea that the owner of a business contributes nothing is an incredibly pernicious idea. So is the idea that the workers contribute nothing, or that the communally owned infrastructure around the business contributes nothing, or that the other businesses that the business relies on to provide necessary services.
Take the owner of the sandwich shop and plop them down naked in the Amazon rainforest and they’re not going to build and run a sandwich shop using the raw materials around them. But if you take the worker who makes the sandwiches, or the construction worker who built the building, they aren’t going to be building any sandwich shops either.
If there is no justification for the profits of the sandwich shop owner, and so we forbid people from owning sandwich shops, what will happen? There are no more sandwich shops. Maybe that’s what you want–no sandwiches except ones made for use, not for profit. So the people collectively decide that there should be sandwiches created and distributed by some rule. How many sandwich shops? What kind of sandwiches? How do you get one of these sandwiches? Who is going to work in the sandwich shop? What happens if I don’t feel like working in a sandwich shop?
Or maybe you don’t think collective provision of sandwiches is what’s important, what’s important is that no one is in the position of being an employer or employee. Everyone works for themselves, and keep the excess profits of their labor for themselves. Except that’s not how it would really work. I can make sandwiches, and set up a sidewalk sandwich cart, and sell the sandwiches. But what if I’m good at making sandwiches, but terrible at customer service? I can’t hire a guy who’s good at customer service to sell the excellent sandwiches I make? No, because then he’d be my employee, and I would be siphoning off the excess profits of his labor. So what we do is, he’ll run a sandwich cart business, and I’ll make sandwiches. And instead of making sandwiches and hiring him to sell them, I’ll make sandwiches and sell them to him in bulk, and he’ll sell them to the passersby. Now I haven’t exploited him.
Except it is obvious that in a situation where I supply necessary goods for his labor, and he provides necessary services for my labor, it is easily possible for one or the other of us to extract an outsize portion of the profits. Maybe it’s hard to make sandwiches but easy to sell them, and he makes a pittance on the markup he can charge after he buys my sandwiches. Maybe it’s the opposite, and I sell them the sandwiches for a pittance and he makes large profits.
The fact that he is my employee or I am his employee, or we are independent businessmen makes no difference. We both get some profit (or loss) from the sandwich selling business, but one of us might make a lot more than the other depending on supply and demand. It is easy to imagine a scenario where I don’t employ someone to sell my sandwiches, instead the sandwich salesman is an independent contractor. Just like I might not employ a janitor, I might call someone with a cleaning business to come in once an week and clean up. A situation where there are no employees working at the sandwich shop, but rather each person is running their own business selling goods and services to each other is different in exactly what way than calling them employees?
Private ownership of the means of production has been shown to work much better than the alternatives. Collective ownership in real life means ownership by the government, not by “the people”, because the people are busy running their own lives and don’t have time to supervise the operation of the collective goods they putatively own. And so operation falls to full time managers who ostensibly work for the people but in real life become the new owners of the “collective” property.
So is the problem with profits? Or with the employee-employer relationship? Or with one person selling an apple for 10 cents and the person they sold it to driving it across town and selling it for a dollar? Is the grocery store committing fraud because they buy apples from the farmer for less money than they sell to the shopper? The grocery store provides no value?