Yes I have no issue with him deciding he doesn't want to live in that kind of scrutiny, it is unfortunately an occupational hazard but he is an entitled to relocate.
If that's the case explain it to me then, I believe the concept as understood by marxists to be theoretical drivel but as the scholar, you possess the knowledge and skill to describe it to the fool.
Where does the surplus value go?
If it is to the family firm of which he took cut of "profits" and received expenses and accommodation, then he was more a shareholder than an employee.
Doesn't fit in this description below.
He can be compared to his brother and his father, he might feel out of place at only being a spare. But he received many of the benefits without the same burden of responsibility.
I'm not convinced you aren't just wumming.