Explaining exploitation and theft by property

[Lanky Wanker]

When we explain exploitation to people and how it generates disgusting amounts of wealth, we always use the typical surplus value examples of "if you work in a factory making jackets/shoes/engines etc.", which is all fine and dandy, but what is a good way to explain this in terms of people who provide services that do not involve producing commodities? With the jacket-maker examples we can explain that things are being produced and sold on with the CMC and MCM stuff, but how would we explain exploitation and theft to people in terms of people who do not (strictly) produce, such as cleaners?

[Ostrinski]

Services classify as commodities I believe. The value of surplus labor is still extracted, the necessary useful labor necessary to perform a certain service still determines the value of this service.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Let me put it like this. If a service worker, say a waitress, is sick one day and the rest of the staff cant catch up with the work in order to replace her. That means that the restaurant (and its owner) gets a smaller profit, and by there you can actually see the value of her labour.

[Lanky Wanker]

Well we can recognise it as a commodity in itself, but it means giving a different explanation. You can't really say that your 8 hours of cleaning up shit which earned you £40 was sold on for £100. For example, my dad owns a garage and works for himself, but wants me to post some business cards for him with a friend as a one off thing. Could this be explained as exploitation by saying that I'm largely responsible for the jobs (money) he'll soon receive, from which I'll only receive a small amount of money? I suppose that in its own sense could be some kind of pseudo-surplus value.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

I suppose that in its own sense could be some kind of pseudo-surplus value.

You got it.

About the cleaning up shit part. You actually said there to, someone wants a place to be clean and will pay for it. That person contacts youre employer and he puts you (the janitor) at work. Youre employer makes up the deal with the one who ones the place that needs to be clean, the deal comes out to be 100 pounds and you get 40 of them. Some one was prepared to pay your job, but a middle hand (the borgeousie) took a big slize of it.

[Ostrinski]

If you're putting labor toward something that can be deemed socially necessary (i.e. cleaning up shit) you are creating value regardless of whether or not it in itself is sold. Since value is being created, and you are not receiving the full product of your labor, surplus value is still being extracted from your labor.

Remember, just because something doesn't hold the property of exchangeability does not mean it isn't useful.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

If you're putting labor toward something that can be deemed socially necessary (i.e. cleaning up shit) you are creating value regardless of whether or not it in itself is sold. Since value is being created, and you are not receiving the full product of your labor, surplus value is still being extracted from your labor.

Remember, just because something doesn't hold the property of exchangeability does not mean it isn't useful.

Exactly. Its often harder to describe 'production of value' when the resulte of youre labour isnt concret and solide, such as building bridge, or harvesting corn.
Even socially unnecessary work, such being a salesman for a special brand of pencils creates value that forms into profits, that makes the company go.

[Revolution starts with U]

All good answers but...

Do the laborers in that shop have any meaningful say in just how much value they created? That's the root of the issue, whether making or selling widhets, or anything else. If another person decides your worth, you are a servant; there's really no way around it.

[Leftsolidarity]

I think you answered your own questions pretty well. Good job.

I work a service sector job. I don't produce anything but my labor lets my employer recieve more wealth because I keep the place clean, I get things set up, I help shoppers, etc.

[Rooster]

Hmmm, I'm under the impression that some jobs are not necessary. It is really necessary to have some one to clean the toilets in a factory that makes cars? Is it really necessary to have a waiter? I don't really think so. Jobs like a waiter are related more with distribution of commodities and don't really add value. It's the chef who makes the value and it might happen to be that having a waiter is the best way to distribute food and drinks.

[Revolution starts with U]

Cleaning toilets that get pooped in is always necessary.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Hmmm, I'm under the impression that some jobs are not necessary. It is really necessary to have some one to clean the toilets in a factory that makes cars? Is it really necessary to have a waiter? I don't really think so. Jobs like a waiter are related more with distribution of commodities and don't really add value. It's the chef who makes the value and it might happen to be that having a waiter is the best way to distribute food and drinks.

I get youre point, but i disagree with it. I think we should be careful about saying which jobs are necessary and not. We have to remember that capitalism does work, no you heard me right, it does. Its exploiting, creates wars, creates povery and missery but it works, and therefor as long as a restuarant with waitors keeps its buisness to work out, then there is nothing that says that its unnecessary. Compare this to when humans started agriculture and could produce a margin that could be stored. That released some people from just having to produce food, so they could specialize themselfes in another task. One could then say that any job that wasnt directly connected to the food production was infact unnecessary.

[robbo203]

I think it is important to distinguish between

1) productive v unproductive work

2) socially useful v socially useless work

2) is only meaningful from a perspective outside of the capitalist economy itself. It considers things directly in terms of their usefulness to human wellbeing

1) on the other hand is a distinction that is internal to capitalism itself. Productive workers are those workers that actually produce surplus value - meaning they actually produce commodities for sale on a market. Many workers do NOT produce commodities and are therefore "unproductive" workers. technically speaking.

Does that mean they are not exploited? No. It is the working class as a whole that is exploited and while some forms of work in capitalism may not produce commodities they are nevertheless essential to the maintenance and functional operation of the system as such. Without them, the exploitation process might be hindered or harmed . For example, the police do not produce commodities. Rather, they are paid out of surplus value to ensure - when it comes down to it - that the surplus value producing society we call capitalism functions in a reasonably orderly fashion and continues to generate surplus value and that capitalist property relations are not imperiled.

Most of the work done inside the capitalist economy is socially useless but that does not mean it is not productive. Arms manufacturers produce commodities that are clearly socially useless but they generate profits

So you can get a fourfold typology thus

1) socially useful but unproductive work e.g. a nurse in an NHS hospital
2) socially useful and productive work e.g. a farmner
3) spocially useless and unproductive work e.g. a bank clerk
4) socially useless and productive work e.g. an arms manufacturer


3) and 4) will, of course, completely disappear in a moneyless marketless wageless socialist economy which will free up massive amounts of labour and resources for socially useful production. It will thus at least double the prpductive potential of such society simply by virtue of changing the whole purpose of production from production for sale to production for use as its sole and only purpose

[u.s.red]

There are economic statistics which show how much, on average, service workers produce per hour and how much, on average, they are paid per hour.

I used to work at a place where they actually handed out production summaries showing what I, and other people, produced per hour. I think it was $40-50 per hour. I was paid about $12 per hour. The difference is exploitation, profit, appropriated surplus value.

[u.s.red]

All good answers but...

Do the laborers in that shop have any meaningful say in just how much value they created? That's the root of the issue, whether making or selling widhets, or anything else. If another person decides your worth, you are a servant; there's really no way around it.

I don't think it is a question of someone else deciding your worth. It is a question of someone else appropriating your worth. The capitalist does not decide to pay you $10 an hour for work that is worth $20 per hour. He is just happy to use that situation for his own profit. He doesn't even know what is happening, in fact, he thinks he is responsible for the profit.

The problem is to take that profit from him and keep it for the workers and, ultimately, for society.

[Lanky Wanker]

He doesn't even know what is happening, in fact, he thinks he is responsible for the profit.


I think it depends. A small business (like my dad's) usually follows the idea that they're doing a fair deal just because they're not paying them minimum wage for a shitty job in shitty working conditions that could kill them. The people who are at the top of, say, Walmart are more than aware of the fact that they're exploiting people.

[u.s.red]

I think it depends. A small business (like my dad's) usually follows the idea that they're doing a fair deal just because they're not paying them minimum wage for a shitty job in shitty working conditions that could kill them. The people who are at the top of, say, Walmart are more than aware of the fact that they're exploiting people.

Your father's business sounds like its ripe for takeover by Walmart. Sooner or later all small businesses end up being put out of business by corporate behemoths.

The people at the top of Wal-Mart believe they are making a profit because of their superior skill in the market. If you tried to explain to them the labor theory of value they would look at you like you were crazy.

[Revolution starts with U]

I don't think it is a question of someone else deciding your worth. It is a question of someone else appropriating your worth. The capitalist does not decide to pay you $10 an hour for work that is worth $20 per hour. He is just happy to use that situation for his own profit. He doesn't even know what is happening, in fact, he thinks he is responsible for the profit.

The problem is to take that profit from him and keep it for the workers and, ultimately, for society.

He can only appropriate your real worth because he has decided beforehand what your market worth is. Capitalists don't wait until you make stuff and then take your money. They know what you are worth to them before you even walk through the door.

[u.s.red]

He can only appropriate your real worth because he has decided beforehand what your market worth is. Capitalists don't wait until you make stuff and then take your money. They know what you are worth to them before you even walk through the door.

He has a very good approximation what the market worth of your wages is. When the capitalists take the stuff you make, they have appropriated the value your labor has created. They then sell the stuff for the value of your wages plus the surplus value you have created. The only money that passes between you and the capitalist is your wages.

[Revolution starts with U]

He has a very good approximation what the market worth of your wages is. When the capitalists take the stuff you make, they have appropriated the value your labor has created. They then sell the stuff for the value of your wages plus the surplus value you have created. The only money that passes between you and the capitalist is your wages.

Your market worth is what he is willing to pay you. Its not like feudalism where you do the work and then stuff is taken. The stuff all belongs to him, and he pays you to work.

[u.s.red]

Your market worth is what he is willing to pay you.

i.e., wages.



Its not like feudalism where you do the work and then stuff is taken.

You build a car; the car is taken from you. However, your wages are not equal to value you created in the car.



The stuff all belongs to him, and he pays you to work.

The stuff he owns is the factory, the means of production. When he takes the car he owns it.