The Religion of Marx: The Bad News of the Kingdom of Man

Thank you. Thank you very much for that very warm welcome. The Saints of Alabama send greetings. It's a pleasure to be here. It truly is an honor and I was just pleased that the article that I wrote fell on years that found it useful.

I'm just delighted to be here to talk with you about the content of that article and how it factors into the broader social justice movement that the church is dealing with now. I call this presentation that you're seeing up there over my right shoulder the religion of Marx and I call it the religion of Marx because we're going to get to a faith statement a little bit later in the article and you'll see just how much faith you have to have in order to believe that Marxism can actually work.

And 2 ,000 years ago Jesus came to us preaching the good news of the kingdom of God and in the 1800s Karl Marx decided that that wasn't working out so well. So he came up with an economic system that he thought would basically be a substitute for faith in God that it would bring peace and equality and harmony and peace and justice and happiness and probably some fluffy pink unicorns on rainbows as well because it was all going to be great if you just give him a chance.

The result of his economic philosophy and particularly his spiritual philosophy has been the murder of hundreds of millions of people and the starvation of millions of people and the ruination of nations.

It's the great destroyer of nations his economic system and every time that it is implemented it fails and then its proponents stand up and say well the conditions weren't right for it just yet you need to give us another chance.

And we've seen it in Rhodesia we've seen it in Venezuela we've seen it in the fall of communism the communist bloc nations in 1989. We've seen it over and over and over again the inability of the Marxist system to contribute to the well-being of mankind to increase our well-being our health our life expectancy it doesn't do what it promises it will do it is bad news.

The Bad News of the Kingdom of Man

That's why I call it the bad news of the kingdom of men because Jesus came preaching good news Marx came preaching very very bad news and what I want to do today as we walk through this I'm going to walk you through there's three main stages in the presentation I'm going to make tonight.

One is to talk about the Pauline economic theory of wages and labor. I'm just referring to how Paul discussed economics and wages in his epistles and what we find is that Paul said that coveting your neighbor's goods is prohibited.

Compensation is related to productivity as in if you don't work you don't eat and seizing thy goods thy neighbor's goods is unlawful it's prohibited. Under Marxist economic theory there we go under under Marxist economic theory there's something called a dialectical materialism and we're going to define that a little bit later in our presentation but under that under that construct coveting your neighbor's goods is perfectly valid.

He had the the cause of all the problems that required his solution was something he called alienation and through his theory of alienation he concluded that compensation should not be related to productivity.

That's why you understand from the communist manifesto from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs. Paul had a much simpler approach he said to each according to his productivity.

And the result of this economic system because it is not typically embraced by the people who are the most productive members of society is revolution and overthrow we we have to have. The proletariat has to overthrow the bourgeoisie the the the the worker has to overthrow the capitalist the the end result has to be revolution.

What's happening now is that theory that Marxist economic theory is being introduced to the church and repackaged so that inequality of income and material possessions is the real problem the gospel is supposed to solve and divorcing compensation from productivity is the solution and forced redistribution of income and possessions is the desired outcome.

And so we're gonna we're gonna cover this in those three stages tonight tonight we're going to start with Paul's economic theory of wages and labor and I'm just going to quote some verses to you that should be very familiar to you.

But as the pastor mentioned in the service this morning the bible is full of economic precepts that have to do with wages labor supply demand and profit. The bible does is not silent on these issues. So we don't need to turn to Marx for our answers.

If we want to know about profit and wages and labor and wealth and private property we can go to the scriptures. Paul as we find in his epistles there we go. He did not covet the private property of others he said in acts 20 33.

When he was addressing the Ephesian elders at Miletus he said I have coveted no man's silver or gold or apparel. Instead he worked to provide for himself. He said yeah you yourselves know that these hands have ministered unto my necessities and to them that were with me.

It's acts 20 34. He did not ask for handouts for we behaved our we behave not ourselves disorderly among you. Neither did we eat any man's bread for naught. That's from second Thessalonians 3 7 to 8. So Paul sets up in his epistles a systematic view of economics and wage and labor theory.

And he considered it covetousness to want people to just give him something because he needed it. He converted his labor to money converted his money to food in a fair market exchange. He uh in second Thessalonians 3 8 it says we wrought with labor and travail night and day that we might not be chargeable to any of you.

He exchanged his labor for wages. There we go. He exhorted the idol to repent. He said if any would not work neither should he eat but rather with quietness. They should work and eat their own bread. Eat their own bread.

That's a reference to private property. It's a private property that's actually been gained in a fair market transaction after monetizing their labor. This is pretty straightforward. Economics is something that we experience every day.

And finally Paul was not afraid to shame those who would not repent of their idleness. He said withdraw yourselves have no company with him. That he may be ashamed that second Thessalonians 3 verses 6 and 14.

So Paul's view of socialism and capitalism is also very straightforward. Socialism merely requires that you covet your neighbor's goods. Your neighbor has something that you want that neighbor should therefore give it to you.

If that neighbor does not give it to you you can go get the government to hold a gun to his head and force him to give it to you at or below market value or sometimes even for free. That's all this required is man's natural proclivity to covet his neighbor's goods.

Capitalism on the other hand requires that you value your neighbor's goods. If your neighbor has something that you want you have to determine its value in a fair free market exchange. You have to somehow aggregate enough value through labor in order to purchase that from your neighbor.

And if your neighbor doesn't want to sell it to you he doesn't have to. Socialism is prohibited in the scriptures because it is an economic system that is foundationally based on covetousness. Capitalism is actually something that is supported in the scriptures.

And in fact the scriptures exhort us to accumulate capital. We're going to actually get to some bible verses where the lord instructs the wise man to leave an inheritance for his grandchildren. You can't leave an inheritance for your grandchildren if you have not accumulated capital.

And what we'll find is the accumulation of capital and the the laws of inheritance were all anathema to Karl Marx and he wanted to get rid of them both. So what we find when we study Paul in his economic theory compensation is related to productivity.

Labor is monetized at market clearing rates. Money is exchanged for needful things. Goods are owed to the buyer. Compensation is owed to the seller. Financial transactions are voluntary seizure of neighbor's assets is covetousness and uncompensated acquisition is theft.

Now i don't think any of you are surprised to find out that this is what the bible teaches. I don't think that any of you are surprised to find out that this is actually a godly economic system. The funny thing is that there are people today who think that this is terrible and needs to be replaced.

So why state the obvious. Why come to you tonight and say everything you probably already believe to be true about economic theory in the scriptures is true. That's because the generation that that is coming up that is learning to reject the pauline economic theories.

Marxism is a rejection of pauline theory of wages. Socialism is a rejection of pauline work theory. Communism is a rejection of pauline theory on private private property universal basic income rejects the pauline productivity theory.

Social justice environmental justice climate justice. All reject paul's theory of covetousness. But i'm not just telling you this because those systems reject what the scriptures teach about economics.

I'm telling you this because the church is being encouraged to embrace that very rejection. Communism and socialism are being repackaged as a christian ethic. Covetousness is repackaged as the ideal of generosity.

Capitalism is recast as unsustainable greed. How many of you heard that have heard that. Well if somebody has a need well the government just needs to meet that need. It needs to give them some money.

Uh we need to be very very generous with other people's money. That's that's what it is. That that system of confiscating the goods of of this person in order to meet the needs of that person without the approval of the property owner it's just covetousness.

It's theft. And yet it's being repackaged as if it's the very essence of generosity to put it a little more simply a generation that was raised on the pauline theory as expressed in the little red hen that is if you don't work you don't eat has been replaced by a generation raised on the marxist theory of the rainbow fish which says if you want someone else's possessions you're entitled to them.

And the community needs to just badger that person until he finally gives up and distributes as well. Now that's a that's a very simple simple summary of the rainbow fish. But remember in the rainbow fish there's a fish with with glorious and beautiful scales.

Somebody else wanted them and he said no. And that creates this conflict. And that conflict has to be resolved. And that conflict is finally resolved through redistribution of wealth. And and what we find is that that is the essence of marxist economic theory is that there's a conflict between the haves and the have-nots.

It has to be solved through redistribution. And because the owner of that of that property rarely gives it up without a fight it requires revolution and major foundational changes in our society. So i want to uh i want to go through a brief summary on marxist economic theory of wages and labor.

Uh but first i want to just identify something that will probably be just helpful for you going forward. Uh communism is the implementation of marxist economic theory. It's a political theory derived from karl marx advocating advocating class war leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works according to his abilities and is paid according to his needs.

It is an economic system based on covetousness. It separates compensation from productivity. Socialism is simply an intermediate step on the road to marxism. In fact if you read marx's critique of the gotha program he states that explicitly marxists are always happy for a socialist outcome because they know that's just the next step in a transition to communism.

But socialism is a political theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production distribution and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. The community owns the means of production the community sets the prices.

And again this also is a system based on covetousness and it also separates compensation from productivity. We're going to get into that a little bit more as we go through. But i wanted to set up that we could talk about socialism we could talk about communism.

But in the end the real problem is the marxism that underlines underlies that and communism is the implementation of marxism. And socialism is just an intermediate step to get there something that marx himself stated.

So marxism in fact is the antithesis of pauline economics. It is fueled by class struggle the proletariat versus the bourgeois. And he states this and i'm quoting from marxist .org in their entry on class struggle he says.

Classes emerge when there exists a surplus of production. In other words when wealth increases there becomes conflict between the people who have it and the people who want it. And as i mentioned this system is based on covetousness.

The conflict between the classes is founded in the division of social surplus. That conflict is founded in the division that's necessary for what do you do with all this surplus wealth. Well it's it's in the hands of the person that earned it.

Well that's that's a wrong place for it. It needs to be in everybody's hands. So now there's conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeois. I don't know if you've ever read the book p .t bower's equality in the third world.

Equality the third world and economic delusion. It's from 1981 he states in that book the most concise summary i've ever heard of how socialism gets into place he said it is. It is the institutionalization an organization of envy and resentment against economically effective people.

The people who have been the most productive in society have have wealth and that wealth needs to be redistributed. And so socialism institutionalizes covetousness and implements and acts on the covetousness of the people.

In the end it divorces productivity from compensation. From each according to his abilities is the productivity but to each according to his needs is the compensation. Compensation is separated from productivity.

And this is a reason for that they they believe that without assuming that we can just set aside all incentives for for hard work and all the punishments for failure and all the all the detriments and consequences of bad decisions just set all that aside and everybody will keep on just working just as hard and there will be just as much wealth.

And then without all the pressure to provide for yourself because you're really providing for everybody else that everything is just going to be happy and wonderful and the total productivity the whole world will go up so far that there'll be so much of everything that we won't even need money anymore.

That's amazing. It's amazing the idea that Karl Marx had. If you just implement this everything is just going to be fantastic. But in the end it requires the seizure of thy neighbor's goods. That's the ultimate end.

Marx talked about the dictatorship of the proletariat. We have to have revolution. We have to cast off the the private property owning bourgeois and the proletariat needs to take over. And of course in this transition to communism will be required to have the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The new sheriff isn't going to be going to be in town and we're going to be barking orders to all those awful people who've been running the capitalist system all this time. It's it's a revolution that's based on covetousness.

And that covetousness is based on conflict between the haves and the haves not have nots. In the end after the dictatorship of the proletariat comes the final redistribution of wealth under communism.

So when you study Marx and then you study the scriptures it's a really easy choice. You look at Marx and say well covetousness is prohibited in the scriptures. Compensation is related to productivity in the scriptures seizing of thy neighbor's goods is prohibited in the scriptures.

We don't need an economic system based on your economic fairy tale. And yet the church is increasingly pressured to embrace Marx and his economic theory. So when we talk about Marx and I do I want to give an overview of his dialectical materialism and his solution to the problem of alienation.

So we'll just talk briefly about what dialectical materialism is. It'll just take a minute to go through this page. But the dialectic by definition is simply the existence or action of opposing social forces concepts etc.

So there's two entities in society that have different views of something. There's a dialectic that emerges between them and the result is going to be conflict. Materialism is the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.

So when you put those together you have dialectical materialism. You have conflict between opposing social forces and that conflict is centered on material wealth. So dialectical materialism the Marxist theory that political and historical events result from the conflict of social forces that are interpretable as a series of contradictions and their solutions.

The conflict is caused by material needs. What I want you to focus in is the conflict is based on contradictions is interpretable as a series of contradictions and their solutions. Two opposing forces they're in contradiction to each other.

There's a dialectic between them and the result. There's got to be an outcome. And Marx saw that conflict as the means of social project social progress. All class struggle will be resolved in communism.

He thought there's classes. There's haves. There's have-nots. There's a surplus of of the production of the manufacturing process that's in the hands of the bourgeois. And we're going to actually advance to a better and better society through conflict.

And that conflict will eventually be resolved in communism. And the nexus of that conflict is material needs. And the goal of that conflict is ultimately to overturn capitalism through revolution. Communism can be achieved only after a period of dictatorship of the proletariat.

That's the working class. And that's what Marx was teaching about. And that's why long live the revolution Che Guevara you've heard of long live the revolution workers of the world unite. That actually is a call to arms to unite to cast off the bourgeois.

What I want to do now is to show you that this is what Marxism in theory looks like. A social progress is through conflict. And I want to just introduce you to a couple terms that are relevant here as we talk through this.

But the idea is that there is a thesis. Somebody makes a statement somebody makes a proposal somebody has a precept something that you might find in the scriptures. If you don't work you don't eat. Then there's an antithesis.

And that antithesis is well gosh there's hungry people. So well okay let's just synthesize let's bring them together. There's a conflict. The resolution is going to be well we'll just give everybody free food.

Okay so see see if you don't work you don't eat but there's hungry people. Okay let's synthesize those two. And now we've made some progress. Well the synthesis is never the final solution. Really there's always another antithesis to that.

And so there's a new conflict because the synthesis is now the new thesis and there's a new antithesis to that. And now there's conflict. And of course there's a solution there's a synthesis between the new thesis and its antithesis.

But of course that's never really the final solution either. There's an antithesis to that. And then finally we arrive at the absolute idea. Well to Karl Marx the absolute idea was communism. So all social conflict was intended to end up with communism as its final glorious outcome.

So we have a conflict nobles and slaves. There's a conflict between the nobles and slaves. In that conflict we have the synthesis. We have now feudal lords. Oh no they have vassals and serfs now and uh oh there's conflict between them.

So now we've got capitalists the bourgeois and there's a there's a conflict between them and the proletariat the workers. And finally as we progress through thesis and antithesis and synthesis we finally arrive at the end of the glorious conclusion of the revolution.

Socialism and communism is brought about and there's peace and happiness and abundance on earth. This is what Karl Marx believed that the purpose of history was there is only social conflict contradictions a dialectic.

There's material needs that is the source of that conflict of that dialectic and through a series of of conflicts and their resolutions we end up at communism which is the ultimate ideal. And I want you to that's something I want to make sure that we understand that when you're dealing with a Marxist you might think you've come to an agreement and he's just arrived at his next argument because progress is through conflict and so whatever you think you've agreed to to come to terms is just the beginning of the next conflict.

And I'll give you an example of that. I remember there was a big bill to fund the education department on Capitol Hill in Washington and I remember there was a big fight over it and this was supposed to solve this once and for all we're going to finally solve the education problem.

And then there was a big spending bill to to fund the education system and and one party thought that oh good that's finally behind us we can just move on and solve other problems in the world. But the party that really wanted all that extra money for education before the ink was even dry on the bill.

They said well that's a good start. It's because it's never it's never the final conclusion it's just the beginning of the next conflict because social progress has to come through conflict. The same thing happened when there was a big tax bill that was finally signed under the previous president and that increased the taxes on the on the wealth.

There's a very very on the wealthy. It was a very very progressive system and all throughout the the debate on whether or not we should increase taxes the argument was the rich have to pay their fair share.

The rich have to pay their fair share. And then finally they just implemented this new tax system and before the ink was even dry they were back out on the street saying but now the rich need to pay their fair share because you never arrive at a solution until you have perfect communism that's implemented until then it's just conflict after conflict after conflict until you finally arrive at what they believe to be the perfect solution.

So conflict must have a name and the name that was chosen for it is alienation. Marx's theory of alienation was that it occurs in society when private individuals or groups of individuals carry on their work independently of each other.

What he's really talking about here is individual laborers who in competition with each other for work which tends to drive down their wages and you have whole groups of well whole populations of individuals that are looking for work their wages end up being coming very very deflated.

And so in his mind if we were not alienated from one another or perhaps we could be united in labor unions or that sort of thing then the workers of the world could unite and then they could actually negotiate labor contracts where that productivity the individual wasn't being discussed it was just extracting whatever whatever wages could be negotiated with the owner of the of the means of production.

Now the way he stated this also though was that because the individual laborer is required to work for his wages so that he can feed himself and his family he ends up producing something that someone else uses and he doesn't even know who that person is.

There's no community between the producer and the consumer because he might make a box on Tuesday and then next Friday somebody from another town buys that box and so he is alienated from the fruit or the product of his labor.

So he said and I'm quoting now from his from Das Kapital or just capital presupposing private property. My work is an alienation of life for I work in order to live in order to obtain myself the means of life.

My work is not my life. This is him complaining that he felt that wage labor was demeaning because it required for him to monetize his labor in order to get money so that he could buy food to live. He thought that that was demeaning.

He says production has become a means of gaining a living living. I have produced for myself but not for you just as you have produced for yourself and not for me. He thought that well there's this lack of community between the consumer and the producers that you're out there producing so that you can gain a wage for yourself.

I'm out there producing so I can gain a wage for myself and the products of our labor being sold to someone we don't even know. And so there's no real satisfaction in the knowledge that I provided for somebody else.

And it's just flat out demeaning for me to have to submit to wage labor in order to meet the needs of people that don't even meet. And in the middle there's this awful middleman who's actually collecting a profit on the transaction.

And that's the most demeaning thing of all. This is what he this is what he did not like he called it alienation. The workers are alienated from each other and from the product of their labor. And he considered wage labor to be the most.

I can't get this to advance. Is there a do we need to replace the battery because it's uh it is oh I'll stop. I'll stop then go to uh. Wage labor is the most profound form of alienation. This was made in PowerPoint 2019 and I think it's being played back to us in PowerPoint 2010 so that that might be.

And right now you're alienated from the fruit of my labor. So so we need to have a revolution. Okay. Yeah that's fine. So so I want to read this and it'll come back up on the screen when he pulls it back up.

But from uh from marxist .org you can look this up online. They've got their whole dictionary their encyclopedia all their interpretation of history there for you to read those first two that I was reading from is from the the first one is from capital.

The second two are from comments on James Mill. The third one wage labor is the most profound form of alienation. This comes to us from the glossary at marxist .org. We uh oh there we go. So he says wage labor is the most profound form of alienation.

And this comes from uh the Marxist web page. But it says since wage workers sell their labor power in order to earn a living and the capitalist owns the labor process the product of the worker's labor is in a very real sense alien to the worker.

Now he's complaining about something. There's just life. I go to work. I do something I get paid to do it. I use that money to pay for my family's needs for their clothes for their food. And Paul did that.

He coveted no man's silver or gold or apparel. He did not covet their food. He didn't take it for free. He worked day and night in order to labor so that he would not be chargeable to them. Paul considered this just a matter of course.

This is just what you do and and Marx is upset about having to do that. It's demeaning to Marx that he would have to work for a wage just so he could live. In other words the biblical imperative for a man to work and provide for his family to him was reprehensible.

Now I look at this and I don't think to myself. Well he does make a good point and so I'm gonna have to blend this with Christianity somehow. I don't look at it that way at all. I look at it this way.

I look at it and say he's teaching something that's contrary to the scriptures. And therefore I reject what he's teaching so well to take this. The next step though is that as I mentioned the the workers are alienated from each other and that drives down the price of labor.

They're alienated from the product of their labor because the capitalist owns it and sells it to someone else for more than it costs to make it in terms of profit. And in the end that profit Marx said belongs to the laborer.

And he said that all profit is unpaid labor unjustly extracted from the laborer. It's unjust wages that were extracted from the laborer. He says there is not a single atom of profit that does not owe its existence to unpaid labor.

So how would you solve this in a just society. Well in a just society all profits must be returned to the laborer which means that all businesses need to operate at zero profit. Every business in the world needs to be non-profit and not-for-profit.

Because to have profit is evil because you have basically stolen money from the laborer. In a just economic system we must surrender the means of production to the community. So the guy who owns the the box manufacturing company has to hand that over to the community and let them run it.

Now let me tell you that this is why people starved after the communist revolution. Because the landowners were experienced at working the land and optimizing the production of the crops to feed millions of people.

And because Marx felt yucky about having to earn a wage to buy food he brought about a revolution took the land away from the landowners distributed to people didn't know how to work it. Crops failed millions of people died.

But at least Marx felt better about himself. That's the important thing. Marx felt good about himself even if it costs 100 million deaths. No biggie Marx felt better about himself. I'm saying it in such ridiculous terms because that is the fruit of his economic theory.

All profit is unjust. The means of production needs to be confiscated from the private owner and given to the community. Profits need to be eliminated. Wage labor needs to be eliminated. And his solution his solution to this is.

It sounds as ridiculous as the summary I just made. Listen to what he says. A just economic system must eliminate wage labor he says. And this is from his comments on James Mill. He said compensation the ideal society should be simply the pleasure of having looked at the object produced as a manifestation of my life and the satisfaction of having served the needs of the community.

Instead of earning a wage in your enjoyment or the use of my product I would have direct enjoyment both of being conscious of having satisfied a human need by my work and having thus created an object corresponding to the need of another man's essential nature in the individual expression of my life I would have directly created your expression of life and therefore in my individual activity I would have directly confirmed and realized my true nature my human nature my communal nature.

Now that's nonsense. That's crazy. And yet the world embraced it. And right now today in this country politicians have embraced it. And what's worse Christians are thinking we should embrace it. Why should I have to feel yucky about working for a wage.

I don't like feeling yucky. I think I should just do stuff I like to do and you should do stuff you like to do and everybody should just feed us for doing it. That's that's Marxism. That is Marxism because he felt yucky about having to earn a wage.

Well obviously the capitalist is not going to comply with this voluntarily and so it has to be done by force. Which is why communism always requires a revolution. And finally finally when the communist revolution is realized we will have heaven on earth utopia.

This is what Karl Marx promised us he said. Finally when all capital all production all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation private property will disappear of its own accord money will become superfluous and production will so expand and so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.

That's from the principles of communism the communist manifesto paragraph 18. You just think about that if we would just implement Marxism all these problems go away and we have we don't even need money anymore.

There's just so much wealth we don't even need money. Money just goes away private property disappears and everything will just be super. Everybody'll be everybody'll be happy. And yet it has led to the misery misery of millions of people.

Venezuela is an example of Marx's utopia. Zimbabwe is an example of Marx's utopia. It never works and the reason it doesn't work is because it's based on covetousness and it divorces productivity from compensation.

So I want to give you some examples of how Marxist theory permeates our world. You've probably heard the term hey you need to give back to your community. I'm all about giving. I think we should give.

I think we should give above and beyond above and beyond 10 percent. I think you should give of your wealth to take care of the widow the poor the stranger the orphan the fatherless help them. The scriptures call us to do that.

I don't need Marx to tell me to do that. But I'm not really giving back to them. I'm giving now. I'm giving back to the lord because all things came from the lord and then the lord instructs me to give that to the widow the stranger the fatherless.

But I'm not giving it back to them. One of the one of the economists I'm going to quote later on today talked about the ideal business model is that when a business comes to town and hires a lot of people it's taken those people from the community and therefore it owes the community something because it's taken all that productivity out of the community.

Well the problem is that the company pays for their labor. It pays wages to them. You come work for me. I'm going to give you money. And yet this economist I'm going to be quoting later talked about well when a company when a company comes to town and hires all these people it's taken from the community.

Therefore it needs to give back. What that implies is that the wages that you pay the laborer is not enough. You owe more than the wages. The fact is you owe nothing more nothing less than the wages. You agreed that that's that's what a free market exchange is.

But this language sneaks into our vernacular and we start talking about giving back to people that we didn't take anything from. I'm about giving. I'm just thinking we should be careful about saying give back.

We've probably heard the language putting profits ahead of people. That's just that's just code language. For we want to set the prices for what you're producing and we want to tell you what to do with the means of production.

I think that people ought to do put the best product on the market that they possibly can at a price that is market clearing price. And then if you feel that's too expensive for that person to buy go buy it for them but don't tell the manufacturer that they have to give it away because you feel bad about that person's economic situation.

Another one living wage universal basic income minimum wage just wage wage threat wage theft distributive justice. It all implies that we need to separate productivity from compensation. It implies that surplus profit is stolen from the laborer.

It's a Marxist theory. I'll tell you this this is quoting from Frederick Engels the principles of communism. Factory owners must be obliged to pay the same high wages as those paid by the state. You want to know what the motive is for the continual increase of the minimum wage the minimum wage being set by what it takes for a man to live for a day separating compensation from productivity no matter what they do you have to pay them this bare minimum amount that separates productivity from compensation.

It doesn't matter what they do or how productive they are you have to pay them this much. The motive behind that is rooted in Marxism the thought that if the state can pay higher wages and compete with the private sector the private sector is going to have to lift its wages too and that's what happens.