Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the bourgeoisie have the right to extort money from the proletariat in exchange for access to the means of production. Let's also say that people should be paid according to the amount of value they produce. What, then, does each party bring to the table? The proletariat produces and the bourgeoisie provides the means of production. In this particular case, the proletariat produces X amount of value, and the bourgeoisie gets a percentage of X that we'll call Y. Now, imagine if the proletariat chooses to work harder than normal and produces 2X. Under capitalist thinking, the bourgeoisie should get 2Y. But under common sense, it's illogical. As I said before, the bourgeoisie provides the means of production while the proletariat produces. The bourgeoisie did not do anything to the means of production to make the proletariat more productive. The proletariat did that himself. He should be paid twice as much for producing twice as much. The bourgeoisie did not make the means of production twice as meaningful, so he shouldn't get twice as much. Logically, owning the means of production should be rewarded with a flat rate instead of one that scales with production. If the bourgeoisie doesn't produce any more value through actual work or investment, why should he benefit when the proletariat does?