What is exploitation?
Guy Marsh
"Exploitation" is a term that is often
misused, as a synonym for low-wage labor,
for example. In fact it has a more pre-
cise meaning that applies to (all) work-
ers under capitalism.
Exploitation is a basic fact of economic
life under capitalism. It is the sole
source of capitalist profits, and without
it, capitalism could not exist.
Exploitation is the creation of surplus
value over and above the wages we are pa-
id for our labor power.
Not owning the means of production, work-
ers have to sell their labor power to ca-
pitalists in order to survive. In return,
we receive wages equivalent to the value
of their labor power. That value is deter-
mined by the value of the commodities we
need to live, to acquire the education and
training needed to produce salable labor
power, and to raise the next generation of
workers.
In exchange for paying wages, capitalists
receive the use of workers' labor power for
a specified period of time and appropriate
the products created by our labor. But, un-
like other commodities, used in production,
labor power doesn't simply transfer its val-
ue to the products. It creates new values
over and above its own value. Those new va-
lues are surplus value which goes to the ca-
pitalist class merely for "owning", not pro-
ducing.
The nature of capitalist production and the
system of exchange based on money tend to hi-
de the fact that the capitalist class is st-
ealing this surplus value.
A worker receiving, say, $500 a week in wages
may be under the impression that that is how
his or her is worth, when in fact that worker
may produce $5 thousand worth of product in a
week's time, with the remaining 4.500 dollars
going to the capitalist(s).
In the final analysis, exploitation means that
the working-class is robbed by the capitalist-
class, which lives off the wealth created by
other human beings.
Persevere.
Guy
Socialist Labor Party of America (SLP)
Member-at-large
http://www.slp.org
__________
Remember the U.S.S. Liberty
06-08-67
http://www.halcyon.com/jim/ussliberty
_______
Former member
Republican & Democratic
Parties
KLF
Guy Marsh <gu...@ptw.com> wrote in article
<MPG.fda538e9...@news.ptw.com>...
> The nature of capitalist production and the
> system of exchange based on money tend to hi-
> de the fact that the capitalist class is st-
> ealing this surplus value.
> A worker receiving, say, $500 a week in wages
> may be under the impression that that is how
> his or her is worth, when in fact that worker
> may produce $5 thousand worth of product in a
> week's time, with the remaining 4.500 dollars
> going to the capitalist(s).
Are you serious????.....The worker who makes $500 a week is paid that
because that is all his labor is worth. The "extra" $4500 comes from OTHER
sources. If the worker could produce the extra $4500 in value simply
through his own labor then he is an idiot for working for someone else.
For example, if the worker in question is working in an auto plant
producing automobiles. How is his labor ALONE producing the extra $4500?
The material used to produce the car...the equipment used to produce the
car...the distribution system to get the car to the consumer...the
advertising used to get the consumer to buy this automobile...None of these
things have ANYTHING to do with the labor put in by the worker.
The "capatalist" you talk of is the person who provided all of that...so he
is the one who is taking the risk and deserves the rewards if
successful..The worker is not taking ANY risk. He will get his $500 per
week regardless. (Unless of course the company eventually goes out of
business, but in that case the capitalist loses also)
> In the final analysis, exploitation means that
> the working-class is robbed by the capitalist-
> class, which lives off the wealth created by
> other human beings.
>
>
> Persevere.
> Guy
> Socialist Labor Party of America (SLP)
> Member-at-large
> http://www.slp.org
> __________
>
> Remember the U.S.S. Liberty
> 06-08-67
> http://www.halcyon.com/jim/ussliberty
> _______
>
> Former member
> Republican & Democratic
> Parties
>
Kevin L Fowler
Libertarian and Recovering Republican
R Nantelle
Your analysis of exploitation in this limited light does tend to illuminate
a larger picture that illustrates the current situation in the Western
world, especially on the North American continent. The key to your analysis
goes beyond that, though: it relies on the definition of commodity and how
it coexists with its practice. Generally, a commodity is that which is
sought, and the seeker obtains it through competition. This pervades all
economic structures (capitalism, socialism, communism, etc); the difference
between the structures is the rules by which the competition is played.
Therefore, one can infer that if this is true, there must be an underlying
"given" of human nature in any economic system: greed. This cannot be
overcome. Some, however, might think that it can be overcome by the fact we
can envision overcoming it. I disagree. So far, there is no proof that
this is possible. This is not a fatalistic point-of-view, however. It is
merely a statement of fact in reality. If we assume this is true and work
with it instead of against it, we can progress.
Thank you.
Guy Marsh wrote in message ...
>system of exchange based on money tend to hi-
>de the fact that the capitalist class is st-
>ealing this surplus value.
>A worker receiving, say, $500 a week in wages
>may be under the impression that that is how
>his or her is worth, when in fact that worker
>may produce $5 thousand worth of product in a
>week's time, with the remaining 4.500 dollars
>going to the capitalist(s).
>
G*rd*n
mikem...@earthlink.next:
| I have a regular 9-to-5 job [ok, it's really 8-to-
| 4], and I own stock. I'm in both classes. I
| am exploiting myself??
You could say that. Probably, the degree to which you
exploit your own labor power is considerably smaller than
the degree to which it is exploited by others, but, who
knows?
| Taking into account the fact that mutual funds
| and 401(k)' use stocks, I would surmise that
| the vast majority of those in the working-
| class are also in the capitalist-class. You
| won't find many people who are just working-
| class. You'll find more who are neither
| working-class nor capitalist-class.
| ...
What do they derive their living from? What do they have
control over? Who votes their stock? How does stock
ownership affect their jobs?
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Note: This mailbox generally cannot be reached from
sites which permit origination or relaying of junk mail.
Michael Morgan
G*rd*n wrote:
>
> mikem...@earthlink.next:
> | I have a regular 9-to-5 job [ok, it's really 8-to-
> | 4], and I own stock. I'm in both classes. I
> | am exploiting myself??
>
> You could say that. Probably, the degree to which you
> exploit your own labor power is considerably smaller than
> the degree to which it is exploited by others, but, who
> knows?
Meaningless tripe.
> | Taking into account the fact that mutual funds
> | and 401(k)' use stocks, I would surmise that
> | the vast majority of those in the working-
> | class are also in the capitalist-class. You
> | won't find many people who are just working-
> | class. You'll find more who are neither
> | working-class nor capitalist-class.
> | ...
>
> What do they derive their living from? What do they have
> control over? Who votes their stock? How does stock
> ownership affect their jobs?
Varies from individual to individual. Before he retired,
my dad derived approx 40% of his income from stock and
the rest from his job. I'm not sure what 'who votes
their stock' means -- assuming you're trying to ask
whether they have voting rights in the corporations
or not, my dad did [and still does] and takes
advantage of it; I do and do not take advantage of
it. In the case of my dad, the stock ownership
gave him the capital so he could retire early and
start his own business. Can't really speak for
very many people, because I mostly mind my own
business. :-)
> --
> }"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
> Note: This mailbox generally cannot be reached from
> sites which permit origination or relaying of junk mail.
--
Remove the 'x' from my address to email me
http://members.wbs.net/homepages/m/i/c/michaelmorgan1.html
"I can't be gay .... I'm a Republican!"
- "Leon", Martin Mull's gay character, on _Roseanne_
G*rd*n
mikem...@earthlink.next:
| > | I have a regular 9-to-5 job [ok, it's really 8-to-
| > | 4], and I own stock. I'm in both classes. I
| > | am exploiting myself??
G*rd*n wrote:
| > You could say that. Probably, the degree to which you
| > exploit your own labor power is considerably smaller than
| > the degree to which it is exploited by others, but, who
| > knows?
mikem...@earthlink.next:
| Meaningless tripe.
You don't understand it, therefore it's meaningless? I
wouldn't make that assumption if I were you. You might miss
something important or useful.
mikem...@earthlink.next:
| > | Taking into account the fact that mutual funds
| > | and 401(k)' use stocks, I would surmise that
| > | the vast majority of those in the working-
| > | class are also in the capitalist-class. You
| > | won't find many people who are just working-
| > | class. You'll find more who are neither
| > | working-class nor capitalist-class.
| > | ...
G*rd*n wrote:
| > What do they derive their living from? What do they have
| > control over? Who votes their stock? How does stock
| > ownership affect their jobs?
mikem...@earthlink.next:
| Varies from individual to individual. ...
Well, then -- class being category of economic function --
we don't know what class they're in until we find out. I'm
the putative beneficiary of a pension fund administered by a
company I once worked for, but I've never been invited to
vote any of the stock the pension fund is based on or to
influence the way in which the fund is administered, so this
doesn't contribute much to my possible status as capitalist.
G*rd*n
mikem...@earthlink.next:
|||> | I have a regular 9-to-5 job [ok, it's really 8-to-
|||> | 4], and I own stock. I'm in both classes. I
|||> | am exploiting myself??
G*rd*n wrote:
|||> You could say that. Probably, the degree to which you
|||> exploit your own labor power is considerably smaller than
|||> the degree to which it is exploited by others, but, who
|||> knows?
mikem...@earthlink.next:
||| Meaningless tripe.
G*rd*n wrote:
|| You don't understand it, therefore it's meaningless? I
|| wouldn't make that assumption if I were you. You might miss
|| something important or useful.
mikem...@earthlink.next:
| {yawn} are you really so devoid of material that you have to
| insult my intelligence? All that little peice of prose means
| is that other people benefit more from my work than I do. But
| you said it in a mannor employed by ignorant people to make
| themselves sound intelligent.
It was you who asked whether you were exploiting yourself,
apparently considering the question to be some kind of
rhetorical score. The concept may not be as useful in
analyzing self-employment as it is in analyzing employment
of wage labor by a capitalist, but it can be stretched that
far if one wants to play the game. Now you complain that
the concept isn't very useful, when it was you who asked me
to extend it. I'm not insulting your intelligence; you
are.
mikem...@earthlink.next:
|||> | Taking into account the fact that mutual funds
|||> | and 401(k)' use stocks, I would surmise that
|||> | the vast majority of those in the working-
|||> | class are also in the capitalist-class. You
|||> | won't find many people who are just working-
|||> | class. You'll find more who are neither
|||> | working-class nor capitalist-class.
|||> | ...
G*rd*n wrote:
|||> What do they derive their living from? What do they have
|||> control over? Who votes their stock? How does stock
|||> ownership affect their jobs?
mikem...@earthlink.next:
||| Varies from individual to individual. ...
G*rd*n wrote:
|| Well, then -- class being category of economic function --
|| we don't know what class they're in until we find out. I'm
|| the putative beneficiary of a pension fund administered by a
|| company I once worked for, but I've never been invited to
|| vote any of the stock the pension fund is based on or to
|| influence the way in which the fund is administered, so this
|| doesn't contribute much to my possible status as capitalist.
mikem...@earthlink.next:
| But you are still benefiting from the capital produced by
| other people. Are you admitting to being a hypocrite here?
No. Working-class people often benefit from capitalist
investment, especially in its initial stages, and where
there is some way for them to protect their rights. What
has that got to do with me being a hypocrite? And if I
were, what difference would it make to the truth or
relevance of what I'm talking about?
mikem...@earthlink.next:
| Perhaps what I was saying origonally wasn't clear enough. My
| intent was that such class distinctions really don't exist at
| all because the line between them has been blurred so badly
| that it's no longer a line -- it's a huge grey bar which extends
| so far into each class that we are left with very few people
| who are completely in one or the other.
I understand this concept. You need to put some evidence
under it by showing a large degree of capitalist-style
control and benefit among the majority of the citizenry.
The real median wage has been going down for most of the
last 30 years or so, and most people seem to be under the
impression they have little or no control over their
environments, including their workplaces, so you've got
your work cut out for you. One course of investigation
might be to find out what the average capital investment per
worker is, and ask how many workers vote that much stock.
Bill Koehler
Guy Marsh wrote:
If you really feel that way then don't work.Since when is a trade
robbery? Your belief
that the person who puts up the resources has
no right to profit from it is nonsense. He took
the risk, the size of the reward merely reflects
how well he pleased the consumer. Your attitude
is obviously the consumer be damned.
By the way, how do you propose to do better?
Consumer advocate, SRA
Malo periculosam libertatem.
David and Kathy Holland
Exploitation can be defined by a situation where one person in a
superior position (i.e., one with more power) uses that position to take
advantage of another. The capitalist system is rife with exploitation,
and it strikes me that the source of the problem is the profit motive in
conjunction with absentee ownership which allows a relatively few
individuals to concentrate wealth and with it, power. I would advocate
a system of worker cooperatives which would deconcentrate both power and
wealth while retaining a market system and economic and political
liberty. While the profit motive would be retained, it would be
diffused by the empowerment of workers and the lower degree of
concentration of wealth.
Bill Koehler
What about the protection of individual liberty?Or is that to be sacrificed
on the alter of the collective?
John Parker
On Sat, 30 May 1998 18:34:40 -0700, gu...@ptw.com (Guy Marsh) wrote:
>A worker receiving, say, $500 a week in wages
>may be under the impression that that is how
>his or her is worth, when in fact that worker
>may produce $5 thousand worth of product in a
>week's time, with the remaining 4.500 dollars
>going to the capitalist(s).
The worker my indeed be part of producing $5000 worth of something or
other, but the simple fact that he cannot simply go off by himself and
do it implies that the system requires something else. What that
something else is, is the capital to build the factory and buy the
machinery that the worker uses, and of course, the whole system must
be managed, organized and looked over to insure that the correct labor
is being utilized in the most efficient manner, the correct product at
the correct is being produced and that the consumer is made aware of
it.
>In the final analysis, exploitation means that
>the working-class is robbed by the capitalist-
>class, which lives off the wealth created by
>other human beings.
More mindless rhetoric from the mindless socialist human tape
recorders. If what they say were true, they could just go off into
the desert somewhere and begin producing their $5000 worth of product,
but instead their claims depend upon, and they insist that they have
the right to grab things that other people have built and saved.
To respond in a logical manner to your illogical posting is
not logical, but it is great fun to add to your obvious
confusion. Remove the E from my Email address.
-John Parker