Talk:Surplus value/Archives/2015

What's with the tagfest?
This is a pretty straightforward and clear concept, "buy cheap and sell dear" intuitive to anyone living in a Capitalist society. This particular term and its German original are so well known, treated, and in general bound to works of Marx, et. al. shouldn't be hard to determine merits of this if that what threads above are about. Lycurgus (talk) 02:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Surplus value is not "buy cheap - sell dear". It is expropriated value as under slavery, under feudalism, and under capitalism. Surplus value is not restricted to capitalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belconnen (talk • contribs) 11:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Interpretations section
I found the (current) Interpretations section very illuminating, and suggest that it be developed more, not less. If it can be tied to any citable materials, success may lie in this direction, and I hope that the opportunity will be grasped rather than dismissed. As the relationships between consumers, producers, laborers and asset holders continue to become more complex, the issues raised become even more critical. Cultural, personal, and soft assets are increasing in their prominence and importance, and these are more freely available than hard and fixed assets (such as PCs instead of factories, solar cells and electric vehicles instead of generators, etc.). Viewed this way, the relation of labor to capital becomes a two-edged sword for nearly everyone -- including myself! P:D -- TheLastWordSword (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * EDIT: In addition, the use of "undistributed business income" for lobbying government and regulatory agencies, and making Super-PAC donations, is a growing concern, as it adversely affects the democratic labors of deliberation and voting, which provide surplus value as well P;D -- TheLastWordSword (talk) 20:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)