Sure, that is what the stand is about.
Marx's idea was the workers contributed everything to the company productivity and that the capital owner contributed nothing, but merely kept part of the value generated by the worker a what capitalists call "profit," but what Marx called "surplus value." Marx defined "surplus value as the difference between the the revenue from sale of a product, minus material costs, when it was greater than the wages paid to produce the product.
For example (Marx taught), suppose a boot factory can employ ten line workers who can produce one hundred boots per eight hour day, with material costs of two dollars per boot. He can sell them in bulk for ten dollars per unit. Thus, each worker creates eighty dollars per day in value.
Suppose eighty dollars per day is the minimum that a worker will keep returning to work for - which Marx called the "minimum wage." Less that that is just slow starvation, so the workers will not do it. How does the capitalist benefit? He can benefit by increasing the workday to ten hours or twelve hours, with the wages to stay the same. If the workers can make one hundred fifty boot per twelve hour day, then there will they can sell five hundred dollars in boots, with one hundred dollars in material costs, so there is $400 in "surplus value" that the capitalist has, in Marx' view, stolen from the workers.
The truth is that unless a factory (for example) is fully automated and robotic, both are equally necessary, the worker and the capital. There is also management, which Marx also disparages, believing that the workers themselves could manage the factory far better than the owners, who he depicted as absentees who hire managers, often from the ranks of the workers.
Marx's idea was that the "ownership" of the capital was worthless in the economic equation. Capital, in his view, was not different than a natural resource. Marx criticized the idea of the owner thinking that he deserved the capital and therefore the surplus value, because the owner had worked and saved to buy the capital, or an ancestor of the owner had. Marx called this idea "primative accumulation."
What I find striking is that this idea of unearned capital was much more during agricultural times, when land was awarded by kings, and worked by workers under the management of tenannts who paid a large part of the sale of the crops to the owner who had likely not gotten dirt under his fingernails for years, if ever. Marx called that value in excess of the cost of labor "rent" in the cases of farming, instead of "surplus value." But he wrote about it after the industrial revolution.
Why were ideas like these never popularized during the centuries of agricultural capital, but exploded once the industrial revolution was in full swing? I think I know, but I'd be interested in yours and
The Sage of Main Street , and
Curried Goats answer before I give mine.