So, is the plough productive? And, since 1) I cannot be nearly as productive without borrowing your plough; 2) you don't need my labour to provide for yourself with your plough; shouldn't your ownership of the plough be worth something? Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
When you bought the plough you exchanged the labor that went into making the plough with something else. If you're making money by buying ploughs and lending them to others for working fields, you're exploiting in a form of usury the ploughmaker. Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
Note that just because you can make a plough doesn't mean you know how to use it - or that you have the land to use it. In other words, to the blacksmith the plough is relatively useless, and the value of the materials and labour that went into it is not commensurate with the productivity gains resulting from its use. Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
What if you're the ploughmaker? Do you either 1) sell the ploughs at such a high price that nobody can afford them; 2) lease them to people for a sizeable fraction of their product as yearly rent?
Under capitalism, if you're a ploughmaker, you do "what the market will bear." Socialism, as Marx pointed out again and again and again, is not some impossible state of affairs where all exchanges are "fair." "Imagine all the people/ Sharing all the world" -- John Lennon
