You see a proof of exploitation. I see a proof that the Labor Theory of Value is wrong.

Hard work is not necessarily rewarded, because it's all about who owns, not about how hard someone works.

In some of the Nazi camps, prisoners were made to carry rocks from one place to another, and when they had carried all the rocks, then back to the first place. And on and on ad infinitum, or at least until accumulated mistreatment (plus disease, malnutrition...) left them unable to do this work. The thing is, they worked long and hard. Yet they produced absolutely no value. (Not that the intention was for them to produce any value...) Because the work they were doing was useless.

A lot of vocations under capitalism are totally useless to society at large, yet they are heavily rewarded by capitalists because it serves the interests of money and profit. This includes the advertising industry, mercenaries, professional soldiers, corporate lawyers, and accountants.

It gave nobody anything. Remove the guards, remove the bad conditions, but preserve the job of carrying rocks from A to B and then back, and you're still producing no value.

This occurred in what was essentially a prison gulag, Captain, even if it was called a "camp." The purpose was to hurt the inmates and amuse the guards. Hence it did have a purpose, albeit a very negative one that didn't benefit the community as a whole. Much like many capitalist jobs or tasks.

We get its use. The medium we are in is an example. We don't pay royalties to use it even though Al Gore could collect them.

The capitalists, however, get both its use and the dividends made from patenting it. We deserve both, while they deserve no more than we get. Moreover, we are actually charged for the use of what our funds helped subsidize.

Well, they would have that opportunity if you didn't tax and regulate them to within an inch.

You say this as if it hasn't already been clearly demonstrated that capitalists will most certainly not generously put more money into creating jobs and otherwise benefiting their own already opulent coffers. Giving them the opportunity to do this has never resulted in them actually doing it, because they are not motivated by generosity, and they do not create jobs because they want to as some sort of civic responsibility. "Trickle down economics" has been a proven to be nothing but nonsense since the 1980s, and only exists now as a purely faith-based policy. When you don't tax the wealthy, the tax burden to finance their wars, bail-outs, and corporate ventures instead falls to the working class, and predominantly the portion known as the "middle class," and the national deficit only increases. When you do not regulate them, you end up with things like speculation-based investing and companies that charge whatever they please, and exploit the environment however they please, and this along with the accompanying loss of safety net programs most certainly do not benefit the working class.

Tell that to the people regulating competition away.

There would be no need for competition in the first place if the system was based on cooperative social ownership.

That motivation is still there in the money and profit system.

That motivation is based on making more money, and not on benefiting the public. If no prospect of making a profit is there, then it won't happen no matter how much it may have benefited the collective good.

You can lower your prices, give freebies, whatever, if you want to. Nothing prevents it.

A lot prevents giving "freebies," because it constrains profits. There would be no need for "freebies" or "lowering prices" in a socially owned, moneyless economy because everyone would get the full fruit of their labor directly in exchange for their share of the required work.

But reinvestment into greater innovation requires some profit to be made to be reinvested.

Profit would not be necessary nor any part of the motivation factor in a system that produced an abundance for all on the basis of what everyone needed and wanted.

You act as if making money was so compulsory that every entrepreneur or investor was banned from altruistic works. It isn't so.

They aren't banned from altruistic works, but they are not encouraged to invest money in anything simply because it was altruistic. It has to make a sizable profit to warrant the investment, and whether or not it helps or hurts the working class in the long run is entirely irrelevant. Capitalist rules of production do not bring out the best in humanity, but feed off of and encourage our most base forms of behavior.