Isn't it effectively stealing to take workers surplus value

Not if they agree to it. There is nothing wrong with two people agreeing to exchange labour with each other.

>>115053874

Look at her with that salad on her plate.


You know she's sneaking off to the Jax to scarf down the burgers she's hid in her fanny.

>>115053874
What make you think they have extra value after work?

>>115054287
Because otherwise the owner of the capital wouldn't make any money

>>115054183
Do they have a choice? Its still stealing even if its the only option.

>>115053874

start a successful, profitable business and then tell me whether surplus value is "stolen" by management.

sell the business, invest the proceeds, and then tell me whether surplus value is "stolen" by investment capital

>>115053874

nice face

>>115053874
She'd be so hot if she lost 100 pounds.

>>115054375
That makes them prostitutes then. They're lucky they are able to find someone to pay for it.

>>115054375
Yes they have a choice, it's not stealing. Nobody is forcing anybody to work for anyone. There is nothing immoral about agreeing on a wage.

>>115053874
I have been finding myself uncomfortably agreeing with these sentiments, but I don't want to be Marxist or anything communist like that.

We can say it's effectively stealing in the same way that anything that is unfair is stealing, but not the same as stealing.

The solution is for the workers of a particular business to own said business as a condition of the company's operation so that the profits end up wherever is in the workers interests, as decided by executives that are elected by said workers. To propose any sort of state socialist or communal solution is to make things worse.

>>115054838
Nonsense. For any reasonable standard of living, employment to capitalist owners of production is a mandatory element of such life.

File: publis.png (223KB, 455x255px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 455x255px

>>115053874
>Isn't it effectively stealing to take workers surplus value

*ONLY* if it's not for mutual defense.

>>115054945
So what's immoral about voluntarily employing people?

>>115054640
They can recoup their initial loss on the capital but they can't endlessly earn money off of it

>>115054838
If someone points a gun at you and says choose to be stolen from by this man or by this man and you choose neither then what we're working with is effectively the same scenario. You can choose not to be stolen from you'll almost certainly die though.

>>115055147
The boss is not immoral, the worker is not immoral.

The boss is just as much a victim of the system as the worker is. Even if he in many cases benefits from it, he is enslaved himself.

>>115055147
That's not the immorality, the immorality is that the pay is less than the worker's contribution. The person doing any direct employment is simply another worker as well, and not even the executives are immoral. It is rather the system entirely.

The problem with traditional Marxian analysis of labour value is that it fails to capture the resource transformation that occurs when land, labour and capital meet, where the output is greater than all the inputs.

>>115055147
Does it make that much of a difference if its 'voluntary' or not if the result is the exact same?

>>115053874

I would fuck her, I would even date her for a few months if the sex was good, but I certainly wouldn't marry her...

>>115055197
Where did the gun come from?

>>115055357
So then what's wrong with the transaction? If it's unjust, then who's morally responsible?

>>115055470
If the owner is paying an unfair amount of money to the worker then why did the worker agree to that amount? Why aren't the two parties allowed to do this?

>>115055500
Yes, because you can't call a transaction immoral if it was created between two people who wanted the transaction to take place. It is a win-win situation regardless of your perception of its fairness. If two people choose to exchange things and are not harming anybody in the process, no injustice has occurred.

>>115057564
>If the owner is paying an unfair amount of money to the worker then why did the worker agree to that amount?
To survive.
>Why aren't the two parties allowed to do this?
They are allowed. This happens all the time.

>>115058795
I'm asking why they should not be allowed, not why they are currently allowed.