This is false and the labor theory of value has been considered bunk by anyone with sense for close to a century now if not longer. By citing it you demonstrate that you are little more than a brainwashed zealot of the Marx cult who doesn't know anything about actual economics. They also didn't "appropriate" any labor in that instance anyway - they paid for it. The fact that you may believe that some laborers received an undesirable wage reflects little more than ignorance and misguided paternalism on your part. Those workers freely contracted to work for whatever wage they earned; many of them were content to obtain the work they procured and many specifically immigrated to industrialized areas for the express purpose of obtaining work under those conditions. It's entirely unreasonable to expect inexperienced, uneducated, illiterate, and unskilled laborers to command a high wage or salary under any conditions for the most obvious reasons. Such laborers were not even highly valued relatively speaking within avowedly "Communist" state capitalist countries of the Marxist-Leninist persuasion. Efficiency, growth, "appropriated value," and "riches" comes from capital-intensive production, not labor-intensive production. Shit, as stupid as they were, even the Soviets realized that eventually. It's the difference between horses and horsepower, antique farm equipment in the field (dancin' half-naked spooks) and tractors. In the case of capitalism vs. communism, it's the difference between the production of an obesity epidemic and the engineering of a man-made famine.