Do First World workers exploit Third World workers? [Archive]

View Full Version : Do First World workers exploit Third World workers?

Mr. Piccolo

19th December 2014, 00:36

Do workers in the First World benefit from the exploitation of Third World workers? Wouldn't low wages in places like China or Honduras help to make those goods produced there for sale in First World markets cheaper? Would First World consumers suffer if workers in poor countries made more money, thus increasing the cost of the goods they produce?

This appears to be a potential problem for international worker solidarity. I would hope that is not really the case, though.

Any thoughts?

Rudolf

19th December 2014, 00:59

Do electricians exploit hospitality workers when they go on holiday? Would electricians suffer if hospitality workers made more money thus increasing the cost of rooms in hotels? Bit of a flippant remark but i think the point stands. The same thing can be said about workers from different industries consuming products produced by those other industries.

The question i'd like to ask is how can someone who doesn't have capital and is not employed to act on behalf of someone who does in the management of that capital exploit workers?

G4b3n

19th December 2014, 01:09

I don't think that there is any doubt that first world workers benefit from global imperialist exploitation. But to say that this the equivalent of first world workers exploiting third world workers would be a misunderstanding of what constitutes exploitation. For someone to act in an economically exploitative manner they must first have the means to do so, which implies having more to sell than your own labor. This reality of the first world working class also discredits the third-worldist notion that there is no proletariat in the first world and ought to call for an analysis that recognizes global exploitation but does not unnecessarily divide the international working class.

motion denied

19th December 2014, 01:17

In some (maybe most) cases first world workers are more productive than third world workers. Read on rate of surplus value.

But of course, the virtual bigger standards of living of the first world proletariat, which may indirectly benefit from third world exploitation, is an issue to internationalism.

newdayrising

19th December 2014, 15:50

The Disillusionist

19th December 2014, 20:29

DI'm a worker in a third world country and I find this whole notion absurd and politically poisonous in that it divides the class even further and distracts it from the real issue.
I'm not a manual laborer and I went to university, so I'm not part of the most exploited strat of society, but even so, if I did the same job in the first world I would be way better of. Should I blame first world workers for it? No, I should struggle here to increase my living conditions and I will support class strggle in the first world as well.
Also I have no illusions about capitalism getting better in any real and permanent manner, specially on the expense of first world workers.
The goal is destroying capitalism not equalize exploitation internationally.

This is all well and good, but until we realize that consumption is the driving mechanism of capitalist exploitation, first world workers will, in a way, continue to indirectly exploit third-world workers.

Workers in developed countries are exploited, but they are also needed to consume products, otherwise there would be no market to maintain the capitalist system. Therefore you end up with a kind of a tiered system. The upper class are the ultimate beneficiaries of capitalism, and they exploit everyone. However, the middle classes buy the products made by the lower classes, thus perpetuating the exploitation of the lower classes, while the lower classes, only being to afford the cheapest products, buy the products made in developing countries, thus perpetuating the exploitation of workers in developing countries.

Production tends to work in the same way. Developing countries tend to produce raw resources which the lower classes in developed countries then produce into refined products, which the middle classes then buy.

Of course, this model isn't rigid, upper and middle class folks can buy cheap products made in developing countries, but there does tend to be a heirarchy, in which the middle class consume more expensive products.

One of the greatest social weapons of capitalism is its ability to turn the exploited classes against each other, partially as a result of this economic heirarchy. The upper-classes might be the engineers, but we are the engines. As a result, I agree with newdayrising that there should be solidarity, but I also think that its important to recognize this system so that we can more fully understand the situation and try to fix it. The truth of the matter is, we are all acting to perpetuate the exploitation of someone. None of us would be using computers if we weren't.

Prof. Oblivion

19th December 2014, 22:45

This is all well and good, but until we realize that consumption is the driving mechanism of capitalist exploitation, first world workers will, in a way, continue to indirectly exploit third-world workers.

Workers in developed countries are exploited, but they are also needed to consume products, otherwise there would be no market to maintain the capitalist system.

This is incorrect. Consumption is the driving mechanism of production, which is apparent in all human societies. Profit is the driving mechanism of capitalist exploitation, not consumption or production.

However, the middle classes buy the products made by the lower classes, thus perpetuating the exploitation of the lower classes, while the lower classes, only being to afford the cheapest products, buy the products made in developing countries, thus perpetuating the exploitation of workers in developing countries.

This stratification doesn't exist, nor does it make sense. Also, patterns of consumption are for all intents and purposes irrelevant to Marxian economics.

Production tends to work in the same way. Developing countries tend to produce raw resources which the lower classes in developed countries then produce into refined products, which the middle classes then buy.

This is simply false. Aside from China, who leads the world in steel production, the largest steel producers in the world are the EU, Japan and the US. Russia and Saudi Arabia lead the world in crude production, with the US in 3rd and Canada in 5th. Australia is 2nd in iron ore production.

The Disillusionist

20th December 2014, 00:05

This is incorrect. Consumption is the driving mechanism of production, which is apparent in all human societies. Profit is the driving mechanism of capitalist exploitation, not consumption or production.

This stratification doesn't exist, nor does it make sense. Also, patterns of consumption are for all intents and purposes irrelevant to Marxian economics.

This is simply false. Aside from China, who leads the world in steel production, the largest steel producers in the world are the EU, Japan and the US. Russia and Saudi Arabia lead the world in crude production, with the US in 3rd and Canada in 5th. Australia is 2nd in iron ore production.

Without consumption there is no profit, dividing the two is primarily semantics. Also, we're not talking about Marxian economics, we're talking about reality, which Marxian economics can be applied to, to some extent.

Prove that the stratification doesn't exist, because the evidence seems to suggest that it does. It's not a concrete caste system, but poorer people buy cheaper products which, since labor costs money, tends to be made by even poorer people. In a capitalist system it would be virtually impossible for the owner of a means of production to profit from his/her own workers, because there would be no profit, the factory owner would only be getting back what they already paid their workers. For a means of production to be successful and bring in a profit, the product must be consumed, and thus paid for, by people outside of that means of production, preferably who make more than the workers of that means of production.

Finally, I never claimed that developed countries can't also produce raw resources, but the production of raw resources much more often tends to form the economic basis for developing countries, as they can't produce more refined materials and/or are discouraged from producing more refined materials because more developed countries can profit from that production.

Prof. Oblivion

20th December 2014, 02:33

Without consumption there is no profit, dividing the two is primarily semantics.

This isn't true at all. In fact, it's central to your entire argument. You said:

This is all well and good, but until we realize that consumption is the driving mechanism of capitalist exploitation, first world workers will, in a way, continue to indirectly exploit third-world workers.

What this means is that you are basing exploitation on consumption. This is a significant departure from traditional Marxian economics which of course states that exploitation occurs in the production process for the purpose of value extraction. Now, there's nothing wrong with not adhering to Marxian economics, but to claim that first world workers are "exploiters," indirectly or otherwise, because they consume goods is just silly. If I buy a tshirt at Old Navy I'm not exploiting anyone; the exploitation had already happened in the production process. That is just obvious.

Prove that the stratification doesn't exist, because the evidence seems to suggest that it does.

I don't think there's any evidence to "suggest" that it does.

but poorer people buy cheaper products which, since labor costs money, tends to be made by even poorer people. In a capitalist system it would be virtually impossible for the owner of a means of production to profit from his/her own workers, because there would be no profit, the factory owner would only be getting back what they already paid their workers. For a means of production to be successful and bring in a profit, the product must be consumed, and thus paid for, by people outside of that means of production, preferably who make more than the workers of that means of production.

This is simply false. You're suggesting that, for example, a McDonald's worker isn't able to afford to buy a Big Mac, which is silly. Empirically speaking, you're suggesting that there is only one avenue to the flow of goods in the international economy, which most definitely isn't true at all.

Finally, I never claimed that developed countries can't also produce raw resources, but the production of raw resources much more often tends to form the economic basis for developing countries, as they can't produce more refined materials and/or are discouraged from producing more refined materials because more developed countries can profit from that production.

This is a gross oversimplification and simply incorrect. "Developing countries" (however you decide to define that nowadays) have incredibly complex economies that are very diverse. For example, look at the Indian economy and how important pharmaceutical exportation is to it.

Loony Le Fist

20th December 2014, 03:37

Indirectly I would say we do. Most of us take advantage of technologies afforded to us by means of far more exploitative work conditions than our own.

newdayrising

20th December 2014, 18:31

I make more money than the cleaning staff in the company I work for. By paying them less they're saving money than can be used paying me. Am I "indirectly exploiting" them then?
Am I indirectly exploiting people in regions of the country where I live where the average pay is lower?
The fact that things workers do help capitalism function is obvious. Most people are workers and everybody consumes things produced by workers, local or foreign.
I don't see how it changes anything and how politics focusing on this "indirect exploitation" by workers can be anything but divisive and reactionary. Particularly because it usually defends political unity with national bourgeois or petty bourgeois elements as well.

The Disillusionist

24th December 2014, 06:15

I forgot about this thread.

What this means is that you are basing exploitation on consumption. This is a significant departure from traditional Marxian economics which of course states that exploitation occurs in the production process for the purpose of value extraction. Now, there's nothing wrong with not adhering to Marxian economics, but to claim that first world workers are "exploiters," indirectly or otherwise, because they consume goods is just silly. If I buy a tshirt at Old Navy I'm not exploiting anyone; the exploitation had already happened in the production process. That is just obvious.

The definition of exploitation that I'm using is "the use of someone/something for a benefit to oneself, often at the expense of the thing/person being used". Though consumers are not directly forcing workers to produce for them, their consumption creates the profit that drives the market, and as a result they are creating/maintaining the demand for the product of the exploited worker's labor. The consumer directly controls the profit, which directly controls the means of production. In a way, the consumer, by buying the product, is using the market to use the worker to get a benefit for him/herself. As a result, I think the argument can be made that consumers are exploiting workers.

This is simply false. You're suggesting that, for example, a McDonald's worker isn't able to afford to buy a Big Mac, which is silly. Empirically speaking, you're suggesting that there is only one avenue to the flow of goods in the international economy, which most definitely isn't true at all.

This isn't what I was saying. I was saying that if McDonald's ONLY sold Big Macs to its workers, it wouldn't be able to make a profit, because it would only be getting back what it paid to its workers in wages. For there to be profit made, there must be consumption from outside the system.

This is a gross oversimplification and simply incorrect. "Developing countries" (however you decide to define that nowadays) have incredibly complex economies that are very diverse. For example, look at the Indian economy and how important pharmaceutical exportation is to it.

I based that part of my argument on World Systems Theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World-systems_theory

In accordance with World Systems Theory, I would call traditionally third-world/developing countries "peripheral" nations, while I would call countries like Indian "semiperipheral" nations, and of course the US and the rest of the western world would be "core" nations.

Oksanr

24th December 2014, 11:20

Yes in the sense that first world living standards are only possible because of third-world resource extraction, and first world workers predominantly agree with this state of affairs. It's not surprising, and the fault still lies with evil men, but there is blame for imperialist stooge workers.

PhoenixAsh

24th December 2014, 12:52

No. They do not.

Exploitation occurs in the production process (as has been argued above) and since proletarians per definition do not own the means of production they therefore do not exploit.

They do however benefit from an increased standard of living which results from the way international trade, commerce and production are set up and that was directly influence by the forced production of certain goods and raw materials in the colonies.

newdayrising

25th December 2014, 22:07