Is This Exploitation?

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Okay so let's say there is a third world country named x. The people are generally poor but the state has control of most of the economy. Average monthly wage is 10-30 dollars. There is some foreign investment in the country, but if the foreign corporations want to use country x's labor, it will have to go through the state. The state will hire labor to the corporations.

Now, the state will get like 1000 dollars per worker the corporations hire through the state, a high "wage" for a third world worker. But the worker itself get from the state 20 dollars out of 1000 dollars. Thus: the state collects 980 dollars while the worker who do all the job get 20 dollars.

Question:
Would you consider this exploitation?

[KC]

It all depends on two things:

1. How the state is structured.
2. How the state is planning on using that $980.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

1. How the state is structured.

What do you mean by "structured"?

[KC]

Sorry about being so vague in my first post. I'll clarify.


What do you mean by "structured"?

Well, it depends on how much control the workers have within the state. If the state is run by representatives voted on by the workers and recallable at any time, then I see nothing wrong with it. Of course, that takes me to my next point.


2. How the state is planning on using that $980.

Well, Marx outlined state deductions rather well in this paragraph:

"Before [the products of labour of the country are] divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today."
-Source (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm)

So, while the proletarian doesn't receive the undiminished product of his labour directly, he is receiving it indirectly through state functions which benefit him as a citizen of that state.

So in reality, how the proletarian is receiving this money isn't relevant, as long as they are receiving it in full (either directly or indirectly). Theoretically, the proletarian could receive no money, the state could keep the $1000, and everything could be provided to the proletarian for free. Of course, I'm pretty sure that this wouldn't work in practice (as a lot of practical issues come up) but I'm just using it as an example to show how the proletarian receives the product of his/her labour is irrelevant.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Any time the workers do not share equally the surplus value gained from production of goods and services with all those responsible for the production of those goods and services are being exploited.

[KC]

Well, yeah, that was my point.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by NWOG+--> (NWOG) Would you consider this exploitation? [/b]
Fuck yes. The state is making a profit on the work of a worker. Surely even Marxists would agree that because a party who is not the worker is getting the benefit of the workers time, the worker is being exploited. Besides, the corporation will probably go and sell that little item for $2000, making a tidy profit.

And another thing, living under a state is oppression, regardless of the nature of the state. So it might not be exploitation, but it is oppression.


Originally posted by Khayembii Communique+--> ( Khayembii Communique)It all depends on two things:

1. How the state is structured.
2. How the state is planning on using that $980.[/b]Oh, my mistake I guess some of those Marxists are worse then what I thought.


Originally posted by Khayembii Communique
Well, it depends on how much control the workers have within the state. If the state is run by representatives voted on by the workers and recallable at any time, then I see nothing wrong with it. Of course, that takes me to my next point.When does a state stop being a state?


Originally posted by Khayembii Communique
So, while the proletarian doesn't receive the undiminished product of his labour directly, he is receiving it indirectly through state functions which benefit him as a citizen of that state.I guess I was a bit harsh above, they are getting the results of their work, just not directly.


Khayembii [email protected]
So in reality, how the proletarian is receiving this money isn't relevant, as long as they are receiving it in full (either directly or indirectly). Theoretically, the proletarian could receive no money, the state could keep the $1000, and everything could be provided to the proletarian for free. Of course, I'm pretty sure that this wouldn't work in practice (as a lot of practical issues come up) but I'm just using it as an example to show how the proletarian receives the product of his/her labour is irrelevant.Umm... I guess I'll just have to disagree with the sentiments expressed here. The state is taking the profit and spending it as the state sees fit. Regardless of the fact that you feel the state is representative or not, any state is not.


Bill Shatner
Any time the workers do not share equally the surplus value gained from production of goods and services with all those responsible for the production of those goods and services are being exploited.So if the corporation is making a shit load of profit ($2000 out from $1000 in), are the workers being exploited? Ignoring the role of the state?

[KC]

When does a state stop being a state?

Well, this is semantics. Since you're an anarchist, you have to realize that according to Marx's definition of the state, whatever form of post-revolutionary organization the working class should take is a form of a state (ultra-democratic workers' councils, for example, is a state).


The state is taking the profit and spending it as the state sees fit. Regardless of the fact that you feel the state is representative or not, any state is not.

This is, again, a semantics issue.

[apathy maybe]

Sure I know it is semantics. But it does not stop it being exploitation, if it is.

Semantics does take up a lot of time in political debate, and not everyone agrees with your definitions, so expect it.

In the original scenario, even assuming your additions (post revolution etc.), if the corporation is making a shit load of profit, is it exploitation?

[KC]

In the original scenario, even assuming your additions (post revolution etc.), if the corporation is making a shit load of profit, is it exploitation?

Is this aimed at me? If so, there wouldn't be any private ownership of business. It would all be state-owned.

[apathy maybe]

Yes it was,
"There is some foreign investment in the country", was in the original scenario. Does this reconcile with your state where everything is state owned?

[KC]

"There is some foreign investment in the country", was in the original scenario. Does this reconcile with your state where everything is state owned?

Ah, missed that part. No, because foreign investment implies private ownership within the country.

[Ze]

Originally posted by Bill [email protected] 27 2006, 04:03 AM
Any time the workers do not share equally the surplus value gained from production of goods and services with all those responsible for the production of those goods and services are being exploited.
i concur

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 12:59 PM
Okay so let's say there is a third world country named x. The people are generally poor but the state has control of most of the economy. Average monthly wage is 10-30 dollars. There is some foreign investment in the country, but if the foreign corporations want to use country x's labor, it will have to go through the state. The state will hire labor to the corporations.

Now, the state will get like 1000 dollars per worker the corporations hire through the state, a high "wage" for a third world worker. But the worker itself get from the state 20 dollars out of 1000 dollars. Thus: the state collects 980 dollars while the worker who do all the job get 20 dollars.

Question:
Would you consider this exploitation?
That is exploitation of country X by the coporations country.

Country X is the wrest of the world and that other place is the US.

[Raisa]

See even if the state uses hte money for the workers......


That doesnt change the fact that the ritch corporate country giving country X money for the labor will never promote country X's growth into a world power, and would rather country X stay down and make it profits.