Exploitation of employers

[ThatGuy]

So we all know, how employers exploit workers through surplus value, right? Now here's the thing. That exploitation can only happen in a successful business. It is pretty common that businesses don't make a profit from time to time and it's also possible that they can fail. In that case the employer must still pay his employees, since they don't take the financial risk of running a business, so what that would mean is that they get paid more than their products sell for on the market. Does that mean that they extract value from the employer and that workers can exploit capitalists?

[Red Economist]

Interesting point. I've never thought of that before.

I think the relationship between profit and surplus value may be more complicated as 'profit' is a measure of exchange value (Price in the Market Place) and 'surplus value' a measure of utility/use-value (which is more nebulous in terms of the labour theory of value). But this is a 'guess', so I'm not sure.

[liberlict]

Exploitation must happen in communism as well. "from each according to his ability, from each according to his needs" just means that the weak exploit the strong, because the least productive get rewarded the same as the most productive. It's kind of like an anti-social-Darwinism.

[#FF0000]

Hasn't this been posted before?

Interesting point. I've never thought of that before.

Are you serious? The exploitation is happening whether or not the boss is any good at it.

[liberlict]

Hasn't this been posted before?



Are you serious? The exploitation is happening whether or not the boss is any good at it.

Yeah it was in the thread on Austrian economics.

This is what I said

A capitalist doesn't have any beforehand knowledge that his venture is going to be a success. For example, I work as a software engineer, and I can tell you that a lot of the projects I work on fail. When they fail, I get out of it with my wages while the financiers get out at a loss.

[#FF0000]

Are slaves exploiting their masters if the plantation goes under?

[ThatGuy]

Are you serious? The exploitation is happening whether or not the boss is any good at it.

Not according to what I understand about Marxism. According to Marx, exploitation occurs, because of surplus value, so businesses that fail can't possibly exploit their workers, even though they do the same basic thing as workers in successful businesses, because there is no surplus value. You can measure the difference in what the capitalists makes and what he pays the employees, so it can be proven that in some(actually MOST businesses fail as far as I know) cases it's the employers that are extracting wealth out of the capitalist.

[liberlict]

Are slaves exploiting their masters if the plantation goes under?

No, slaves are exploited because they are legally bound to their masters, or indentured for a period of time. Irrespective of what happens there is slavery going on.

Us dirty class traitors think that where people are allowed to move and bargain freely there is no such thing as 'exploitation'. A worker/capitalist agreement is just one that both parties think they will get more out of than they had before they went into it. They never know. Usually it's the capitalists who make more, because of their bargaining leverage, but certainly not always. Often projects fail and only workers come out ahead. Indeed there's been countless times unions have held companies to ransom and let them go bankrupt. Which I think is fine, btw. If the capitalists agreed to spend more on labour than they can afford then it's only their fault.

[Comrade #138672]

So we all know, how employers exploit workers through surplus value, right?

Yes.

Now here's the thing. That exploitation can only happen in a successful business

No.

It is pretty common that businesses don't make a profit from time to time and it's also possible that they can fail.

Yes.

In that case the employer must still pay his employees, since they don't take the financial risk of running a business,

Nor could they have. They do not have any capital to "risk" anyway.

so what that would mean is that they get paid more than their products sell for on the market.

Not necessarily.

Does that mean that they extract value from the employer and that workers can exploit capitalists?

No. It just means that the capitalist extracts less surplus-value from the workers and no surplus-value at all in the worst case. Workers do not have the means to exploit capitalists, since they lack the means of exploitation, i.e. capital. This "reverse exploitation" argument is similar to the "reverse racism" and "reverse sexism" argument. It assumes that anyone can exploit and oppress anyone, which is not the case.

[liberlict]

Not according to what I understand about Marxism. According to Marx, exploitation occurs, because of surplus value, so businesses that fail can't possibly exploit their workers, even though they do the same basic thing as workers in successful businesses, because there is no surplus value. You can measure the difference in what the capitalists makes and what he pays the employees, so it can be proven that in some(actually MOST businesses fail as far as I know) cases it's the employers that are extracting wealth out of the capitalist.

Yeah, what you are saying is true technically. Exploitation, in the Marxian sense, is where the workers get paid less that the value of what they are producing. If what is being produced has no value, then there is no exploitation.

I don't think Marx was really concerned with this kind of scenario or even thought about it. He was writing about successful business ventures where capitalists were making profits.

[liberlict]

Yes.

Workers do not have the means to exploit capitalists, since they lack the means of exploitation, i.e. capital. This "reverse exploitation" argument is similar to the "reverse racism" and "reverse sexism" argument. It assumes that anyone can exploit and oppress anyone, which is not the case.

Yeah, it's not a case of "reverse exploitation", or any exploitation. It just means the whole venture was a flop. But the workers most assuredly did profit from it more than the capitalists.

[Comrade #138672]

Yeah, it's not a case of "reverse exploitation", or any exploitation. It just means the whole venture was a flop. But the workers most assuredly did profit from it more than the capitalists.

How? They gain nothing from it. They still get paid the same wages, or worse, their wages are cut in order to save the company. Or they get laid off. This happens frequently.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Exploitation arises from the gap between wages and the exchange-value of a commodity, which is not identical to a price, and does not need to be realised as a price. For example, workers are paid 8 of some arbitrary unit (AU) representing a certain amount of commodities etc. to produce something whose exchange-value is 20 AU and that can sell for 18-22 AU. Or it can go missing in the warehouse and not be sold at all.

[liberlict]

How? They gain nothing from it. They still get paid the same wages, or worse, their wages are cut in order to save the company. Or they get laid off. This happens frequently.

They got paid at least. The financiers lost money.

[liberlict]

Exploitation arises from the gap between wages and the exchange-value of a commodity, which is not identical to a price, and does not need to be realised as a price.

Price is just one "value form" of exchange value, but there's very limited possibilities for other value forms. The only other possibility is the individual subjectively calculating in kind. But sans a "coincidence of wants" he/she rarely has all the information to do this. The bigger and more active the market the more accurate the information you are going to get about what something is worth.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Price is just one "value form" of exchange value, but there's very limited possibilities for other value forms. The only other possibility is the individual subjectively calculating in kind. But sans a "coincidence of wants" he/she rarely has all the information to do this. The bigger and more active the market the more accurate the information you are going to get about what something is worth.

You're missing the point. In capitalism, exchange-value is always realised as a price at the point of exchange. But the commodity doesn't necessarily reach that point. It can fall off the back of a truck, for example. That doesn't eliminate the gap between wages and produced exchange-values.

[liberlict]

You're missing the point. In capitalism, exchange-value is always realised as a price at the point of exchange. But the commodity doesn't necessarily reach that point. It can fall off the back of a truck, for example. That doesn't eliminate the gap between wages and produced exchange-values.

So what? If it falls off the back of a truck, presumably on the way to a shop to be sold, the capitalist is the one losing out. Or maybe the truck driver if he didn't pack properly.

[Red Deathy]

Exploitation occurs because workers, having no access to the means of living, must sell themselves to an employer. The employer, uses their capital to buy the abilities of those workers to use as she sees fit over a certain time. What they produce in the time she has bought belongs to her, and she keeps the full value of those products.

She will have paid the full value of the labour power of the workers. The fact of exploitation is in that the workers become the object of the capitalist, rather than a subject in their own right, they are employed, used, exploited. They are not equals or partners.

If a capitalist goes bust that doesn't change the fact that they have exploited their workers the way a failed farmer exploits a field.

[Red Economist]

Are you serious? The exploitation is happening whether or not the boss is any good at it.

yeah. I assumed it was still exploitation, but never thought of it that way.

[Baseball]

You're missing the point. In capitalism, exchange-value is always realised as a price at the point of exchange. But the commodity doesn't necessarily reach that point. It can fall off the back of a truck, for example. That doesn't eliminate the gap between wages and produced exchange-values.

Ok- so, in the socialist community, when an item never reaches the point of exchange, or perhaps is not wanted at the point of exchange, were the workers who produced that item exploited?