[snip]:In my paradigm, "surplus value" does not exist.
I'm sure we all like to create paradigms that provide 'moral' cover.
I had all sorts of rationalizations when I had employees. It was MY brilliant idea. It was My initiative, My visualization, My sweat and tears getting it off the ground, My education,...it was, in a word...ME. I was King Shit. For every employee I hired, I made more bucks. It was Their labor not Mine that I used to recapitalize. And when I sold the business it was Me that got the 5 years royalties - Not the emplyees. In a word, for a small period of my life and on a small scale I played the game. It sucks.
:When hiring each employee, the employee and I agreed to trade money for labor.
This does not make surplus labor disappear.
:Both parties agreed to the contract and each party was free to accept or reject the contract.
Yes...in a country that is designed to operate 'most efficiently' when there are a minimum of several million unemployed, (adjustments insured by Alan Greenspan) the unemployed are perfactly 'free' to reject a 'contract'.
:There was no surplus to negotiate.
Oh yes there was.
:The concept of surplus value is formed in order to synthesize a moral
argument in favor of collectivists.
No...more likely is the idea that collectives develop from moral arguments about the expropriation of surplus labor.
:This structure has grown to include the moral imperative of theft of property and reparations to a disenfranchised "proletariat".
Without input as to disposition of this surplus it is either theft or totalitarianism, or both.
:This is such an amazing dissociation from the day to day relationships people have with each other in this country.
It is not amazing in a culture conditioned to accept a musical chairs world in which 8 people are forced to fight for 5 offered chairs.
:I reject it out of hand.
So what else is new.
None.
