I think you are very close to the central point of this debate. Whose value is it to begin with? Current cultural norms point to 100% of the value belonging to shareholders and them deciding how much of that to share with employees and execs in form of salaries, bonuses and stocks. If the employees are not happy with a proposal, then they are happy to go find more generous shareholders.
In that light, I don't think it is stealing.
A good cultural shift may be to re-align assumptions that personal advantages are due to factors we individually control, and think hard about how we would prefer the other party acted were the tables turned.
An ocean full of yachts is pretty worthless if no one offers them a port.
You don't think hard work and personal initiative matters?
for me, it's a bit hyperbolic, but just in case I wake up in someone else's body tomorrow, my hard work and personal initiative will mean that at least whoever got my body has a decent shot at life. hope I landed in someone who felt likewise
a roundabout way of saying "if we all believed that we would wake up in a different body tomorrow, I bet we would all be a lot nicer to each other", but maybe more realistically, I suppose a mutual feeling like that would at least manifest into people being more pleasant overall, even if it is incredibly unlikely that you'll actually physically switch bodies
I came across an excellent phrase not but an hour ago (italics mine):
"The political mobilization of envy has led to legal restrictions on productive groups, preferential policies for those unable to compete with them, mass expulsions, confiscations, and mob violence..." [1]
The prevalence of the idea that "shareholders are stealing" seems like an example of "the political mobilization of envy."
[1] Race and Culture: A World View, by Thomas Sowell - (He was talking about the Tamils in Sri Lanka, the Germans in Russia... throughout history, not just current events.)
You can have different perspectives or ideological relationships to this concept, even make an argument for the role envy could play in this expression of it. But there is literally centuries of analysis of this you should catch up on before you try to simplify it so completely.
If I didn't think you were serious, I'd laugh at your good joke.
I think workers should show up at the owners' homes with a different offer - "Perhaps we will let you live."
That's why we need a finely balanced solution. Humanity tried giving workers total control (USSR) and it was a disaster. We also tried giving workers somewhat less control but still more leverage (socialist policies in India until 90's) and that wasn't much success either. For now, various social contracts within a narrow range of what US does and say, what Sweden does, seem to be working well.
The gall of calling Stalin a defender of the workers, this is hilarious.
There were many other search engines at one point. Consumers en masse decided to favor Google. Same for email or map or browser providers. Google just has better products from the lens of an average Joe.
Same with smartphones - plethora of choice and yet people are willing to pay through their noses to get iPhones.