Econ 101 was Macroeconomics when I took it in college and it was required for an associate's degree. I earned a B in the class. I deduce that other colleges over the world also have it as a requirement. Ben strikes me as a college educated individual, so I deduce that he might have taken Econ 101 in his studies. As far as his experience with Marx, well I never read Marx in any of my studies, but perhaps his studies required him to read Marx or he read it in his leasure.

In any case, he is asking what the relationship between capital and labor is using Econ 101 and Marx.

Given that while labor may help earn capital, labor can be contracted out to the lowest bidder and need not be part of the organization that earns capital. Only a small part of capital can be used to pay labor, while the home organization has the Lion's Share of capital. This has happened before with moving manufactoring to other countries where labor is cheaper. Wal-Mart does this, giving huge capital amounts to their HQ in Arkansas. Perhaps a Finnish company with offices in the USA and India moves capital back to Finland, perhaps they make cell phones and the USA office sells them in the USA and the Indian office does the tech support help desk and has a factory that makes them? Then by ITC's definition of labor being related to capital, Finland needs to open up its borders to let more workers into their country because capital is moving there. Ignoring the fact that it does not matter where labor happens, as labor can be done virtually anywhere on the globe.