Thread: Can someone very simply explain exploitation?

Results 1 to 20 of 84

  1. #1
    Join Date Sep 2014
    Posts 286
    Rep Power 5

    Default Can someone very simply explain exploitation?

    I tend to overexplain it and doubt I undersyand it well
  2. #2
    Join Date Dec 2003
    Location Oakland, California
    Posts 8,151
    Rep Power 164

    Default

    The way exploitation seems to be generally understood is that some kind of (power or relationship) imbalance results in someone getting a bad deal compared to the exploiter. This is ok, but way too broad and usually relies on some kind or subjective moral sense of what's "fair".

    [short answer]I think the marxist version is similar but more based in productive relationships where social relationships create the power for the exploiters to systematically take a portion of the value created by the exploited. [/end the short answer]

    In slave and feudal societies this (economic) exploitation is direct and done by "rights" of the lords and whatnot. In capitalism it's indirect and done through property rights and usually the wage system. The problem with the general definition is that anyone can define what "fair" is as capitalists complain that profits and power over workers is fair because capitalists "take the risk". Aristocrats and slave owners paternalistically claimed their exploitation was fair because the defended/housed "their" peasants/slaves. Capitalist exploiters can be pretty paternalistic too: "makers" and "job creators" for us poor slobs who should be happy for the luxury of working for them.
  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Jimmie Higgins For This Useful Post:


  4. #3
    Join Date Jun 2003
    Posts 22,185
    Rep Power 0

    Default

  5. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to The Feral Underclass For This Useful Post:


  6. #4
    Join Date Jul 2014
    Posts 309
    Rep Power 5

    Default

    I tend to overexplain it and doubt I undersyand it well
    I would recommend reading what Marx had to say about surplus value. He wrote about it extensively in Das Kapital, googling it can probably give you specific quotes and such.

    Surplus value is essentially the value extracted by the capitalist through human labour that is not paid back to the employees. The unfairness of this system manifests itself as an ever-growing wealth gap in which one minority class exerts exploitative power over the majority.
  7. #5
    Join Date Sep 2014
    Posts 286
    Rep Power 5

    Default

    But would this not exist in socialism too? Obviously the worker can't get back the full valye of his labor. How does socialism change this?
  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Jacob Cliff For This Useful Post:


  9. #6
    Join Date Oct 2013
    Location SJ Bay Area
    Posts 682
    Organisation
    Seedlings of the Mexican Invasion
    Rep Power 17

    Default

    But would this not exist in socialism too? Obviously the worker can't get back the full valye of his labor. How does socialism change this?
    No, this is eliminated in socialism. Class is eliminated and money is definitely eliminated. Instead of producing for surplus value, products are produced for need. Work will be completely different than how it is under capitalism, so class relations that cause exploitation will be destroyed and disposed of.
    "Maybe some day... I'll find a way... without you.."
  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bala Perdida For This Useful Post:


  11. #7
    Join Date Aug 2013
    Posts 705
    Rep Power 30

    Default

    But would this not exist in socialism too? Obviously the worker can't get back the full valye of his labor. How does socialism change this?

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/mar...gotha/ch01.htm
    "We have seen: a social revolution possesses a total point of view because – even if it is confined to only one factory district – it represents a protest by man against a dehumanized life" - Marx

    "But to push ahead to the victory of socialism we need a strong, activist, educated proletariat, and masses whose power lies in intellectual culture as well as numbers." - Luxemburg

    fka the greatest Czech player of all time, aka Pavel Nedved
  12. #8
    Join Date Jul 2012
    Location The Netherlands
    Posts 1,255
    Organisation
    International Socialists
    Rep Power 18

    Default

    Exploitation can be defined in terms of the labor theory of value, i.e.,

    W = c + L

    L is the added labor, c the productively consumed constant capital. L can then be divided into v + s:

    L = v + s

    Basically, v is what the worker receives and s is what the capitalist extracts from the worker. This is essentially free labor for the capitalist. Then, the rate of exploitation can be defined as:

    e' = s / v

    Although, technically, exploitation would still exist if s = 0, but this is an exception to the general rule. Capitalism could simply not exist, if, in general, s = 0.
    “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force.” - Karl Marx
  13. #9
    Join Date Jun 2003
    Posts 22,185
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    How are any of these explanations simple?
  14. The Following User Says Thank You to The Feral Underclass For This Useful Post:


  15. #10
    Join Date Oct 2013
    Location USA
    Posts 814
    Rep Power 16

    Default

    But would this not exist in socialism too? Obviously the worker can't get back the full valye of his labor. How does socialism change this?
    Wrong. Through automation it would be possible for workers to actually get back more than the value of their labor. It sounds like magic, but it's really just definitions. Unfortunately capitalist automation prevents this.
    I am a pessimist by nature. Many people can only keep on fighting when they expect to win. I'm not like that, I always expect to lose. I fight anyway, and sometimes I win.
    --rms

    While corporations dominate society and write the laws, each advance in technology is an opening for them to further restrict its users.
    --rms

    AKA loonyleftist
  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Loony Le Fist For This Useful Post:


  17. #11
    Join Date Jul 2009
    Posts 5,754
    Rep Power 115

    Default

    Of course it's not possible for workers to get back 'more' than the value they produce - except by taking the value other workers produce.

    All social wealth is a result of people doing things to stuff. If 4 billion workers do things to stuff, then if each worker is entitled to 'their own proportion', each worker is entitled to 1/4 billionth of the stuff.

    But the couple-of-billion non-workers (old, infirm, young etc) then starve to death, unless they can persuade the workers to give them some of the stuff. And anyone who's primarily 'non-productive' (because they're for example too busy healing people not making sofas) may also be counted as not making stuff, it rather depends.

    So; the 'best' way to sort it is to say that all the stuff (made by less than the total number of people) belongs to all the people (which must always be greater than the number of people producing the stuff). This means that the notion that 'the worker' ever gets her/his 'just proportion' (and no less) must necessarily be nonsense.
    Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm

    No War but the Class War

    Destroy All Nations

    Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
  18. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Blake's Baby For This Useful Post:


  19. #12
    Join Date Nov 2014
    Posts 22
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    What is exploitation? The extraction of surplus value by the bourgeoisie through control over the means of production and the perpetuation of this process by means of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

    But would this not exist in socialism too? Obviously the worker can't get back the full value of his labor. How does socialism change this?
    How is the bourgeoisie supposed to exploit the workers if the latter hold political power (and thus have control over the means of production)? Under the dictatorship of the proletariat, whatever the worker doesn't get directly, he receives in some other form -- through the workers' state -- some kind of service or investment (to raise productivity) or something. Inequality does, however, exist under socialism as distribution is according to work, not needs (as it would be under communism).
  20. #13
    Join Date Jul 2009
    Posts 5,754
    Rep Power 115

    Default

    ... Inequality does, however, exist under socialism as distribution is according to work, not needs (as it would be under communism).
    One of the most fundamental misunderstandings of Marx ever perpetrated, in my opinion.
    Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm

    No War but the Class War

    Destroy All Nations

    Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
  21. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Blake's Baby For This Useful Post:


  22. #14
    Join Date Oct 2014
    Posts 358
    Rep Power 8

    Default

    Haha....Yeah, these explanations aren't simple in the least.

    Exploitation: To use something or someone for some kind of benefit to the user/s, often at a cost to that thing or person.

    That is exploitation. However, as this thread has made very clear, there is a ton of context around the word that you have to muddle through, and the word can mean very different things in different contexts. For example, anthropologists often talk about the exploitation of tools and resources as a common part of everyday human life, while Marxists oftern talk about exploitation as the use of workers for profit as a negative effect of a capitalist economy.
    Dragging Marxists into the modern age, kicking and screaming, one pointless argument at a time.
  23. #15
    Join Date Nov 2014
    Posts 22
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    One of the most fundamental misunderstandings of Marx ever perpetrated, in my opinion.
    Well, let's see what Marx has to say on this --

    Hence, equal right here [under socialism] is still in principle -- bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case.

    In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor.

    But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

    But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.


    In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
    And Lenin (from The State and Revolution) --

    And so, in the first phase of communist society (usually called socialism) "bourgeois law" is not abolished in its entirety, but only in part, only in proportion to the economic revolution so far attained, i.e., only in respect of the means of production. "Bourgeois law" recognizes them as the private property of individuals. Socialism converts them into common property. To that extent--and to that extent alone--"bourgeois law" disappears.

    However, it persists as far as its other part is concerned; it persists in the capacity of regulator (determining factor) in the distribution of products and the allotment of labor among the members of society. The socialist principle, "He who does not work shall not eat", is already realized; the other socialist principle, "An equal amount of products for an equal amount of labor", is also already realized. But this is not yet communism, and it does not yet abolish "bourgeois law", which gives unequal individuals, in return for unequal (really unequal) amounts of labor, equal amounts of products.
  24. #16
    Join Date Dec 2003
    Location Oakland, California
    Posts 8,151
    Rep Power 164

    Default

    Haha....Yeah, these explanations aren't simple in the least.

    Exploitation: To use something or someone for some kind of benefit to the user/s, often at a cost to that thing or person.

    That is exploitation. However, as this thread has made very clear, there is a ton of context around the word that you have to muddle through, and the word can mean very different things in different contexts. For example, anthropologists often talk about the exploitation of tools and resources as a common part of everyday human life, while Marxists oftern talk about exploitation as the use of workers for profit as a negative effect of a capitalist economy.
    Yeah, that's the general term, but it's so broad as to be useless in the way I think the o.p. means it. It's like saying the definition of labor is "doing something that results in something else" or that revolution is "a turn over".
  25. The Following User Says Thank You to Jimmie Higgins For This Useful Post:


  26. #17
    Join Date Aug 2013
    Posts 1,489
    Rep Power 24

    Default

    Well, let's see what Marx has to say on this --



    And Lenin (from The State and Revolution) --
    1.) Under the first phase of socialism, the general social product is still distributed by need, but goods that cannot be made non-scarce would be rationed through this work-point system. Deductions are made from these work points -- as Marx states -- to go for general social welfare (ensuring the needs of the old, infirm, young and whomever cannot work), and other social projects, such as education and health care.

    2.) I suspect what Blake's Baby is referring to, when replying to you, is that there is no "socialism/communism" dual-stage system. This is a major error made on the part of Lenin (I don't know where he got that the first phase here is "usually called socialism" while the latter phase is called "communism" because he didn't get it from Marx.) It is all socialism and socialism is communism, where it regards Marx. He doesn't delineate between the two, because there is no reason to. The fundamental underpinnings of the society are the same -- which is an abolition of class and value and, consequently, capitalism.
  27. The Following User Says Thank You to Creative Destruction For This Useful Post:


  28. #18
    Join Date Dec 2003
    Location Oakland, California
    Posts 8,151
    Rep Power 164

    Default


    2.) I suspect what Blake's Baby is referring to, when replying to you, is that there is no "socialism/communism" dual-stage system. This is a major error made on the part of Lenin (I don't know where he got that the first phase here is "usually called socialism" while the latter phase is called "communism" because he didn't get it from Marx.) It is all socialism and socialism is communism, where it regards Marx. He doesn't delineate between the two, because there is no reason to. The fundamental underpinnings of the society are the same -- which is an abolition of class and value and, consequently, capitalism.
    Well an import and difference between marx writings on this and lenin's in state and revolution is that marx was trying to talk about how communism could be achived (that "a" could be replaced with "b") in a general theoretical sense whereas "state and Revolution" was written as people were grappling with, well workers can take power, but then what specifically to get from a to b.

    In that context, imo there is a need and reason to distinguish between the two regardless of if people call it "lower phase" or "socialism" or "transition" or "revolutionary period".
  29. The Following User Says Thank You to Jimmie Higgins For This Useful Post:


  30. #19
    Join Date Aug 2013
    Posts 1,489
    Rep Power 24

    Default

    Well an import and difference between marx writings on this and lenin's in state and revolution is that marx was trying to talk about how communism could be achived (that "a" could be replaced with "b") in a general theoretical sense whereas "state and Revolution" was written as people were grappling with, well workers can take power, but then what specifically to get from a to b.

    In that context, imo there is a need and reason to distinguish between the two regardless of if people call it "lower phase" or "socialism" or "transition" or "revolutionary period".
    calling it a "transition" or the "revolutionary period" would be completely wrong. probably more wrong than the "socialism/communism" dichotomy. trying to revise Marx in this just ends up muddying up the entire argument, rather than clarifying it.
  31. #20
    Join Date Nov 2014
    Posts 22
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    there is no "socialism/communism" dual-stage system. This is a major error made on the part of Lenin (I don't know where he got that the first phase here is "usually called socialism" while the latter phase is called "communism" because he didn't get it from Marx.) It is all socialism and socialism is communism, where it regards Marx. He doesn't delineate between the two, because there is no reason to. The fundamental underpinnings of the society are the same -- which is an abolition of class and value and, consequently, capitalism.
    Umm.. no.

    Originally Posted by Karl Marx
    Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

Similar Threads

  1. crisis of over production made simply?
    By redhotpoker in forum News & Ongoing Struggles
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 14th June 2011, 18:57
  2. Maoism-Third Worldism: simply explained
    By Struggle in forum Opposing Ideologies
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 14th June 2011, 07:18
  3. Cenk explains oil speculation simply.
    By RGacky3 in forum Opposing Ideologies
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 14th May 2011, 06:28
  4. Wow, this is simply absurd.
    By Incendiarism in forum Anti-Discrimination
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 23rd January 2009, 18:32

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Tags for this Thread