[Lots92]

I've recently read some posts which claimed that Capitalism exploits workers, but I haven't seen any elaboration on this topic. Is the definition of exploitation the same as the current dictionary definition?

Can someone fill me in?

[Social_Critic]

Capitalism exploits workers, but that's OK as long as it doesn't allow workers to be exploited too much. What I've found is that people tend to get power and abuse it, and this is more likely to happen under a Socialist/Communist system, or a fascist system, because those two, which in the end are very similar, involve state control or silencing of the media, as well as labour unions.

Communists in particular are a vermin, because they make the state both the owner and the decision making power when there are conflicts between the working class and the owner class. In a communist regime the owner class becomes the "Communist Party Nomenklatura", that is the senior officials who end up living in really nice houses and have drivers and so on.

China is an extreme case of this situation, where the regime has now morphed from communist to facist without missing a beat, but the old Soviet Union was a great example of abuse and exploitation of the working class, which got really screwed by the Marxist elites.

This is why most of these communist elites are scum - they ought to be exiled to North Korea where they can eat grass under the direction of Dear Leader's Great Son, or whatever they call that fat bastard who inherited the Communist party crown.

[Lots92]

I understand that abuse of power occurs under Socialist and Communist governments, but I still don't understand what is meant when someone says that workers are exploited under Capitalism. You've said that workers are exploited under Capitalism, but that it's okay so long as the exploitation is kept to a minimum (is that what you mean?).

I'm looking for some answers to the questions:

How is exploitation defined?
Who exploits whom and why?

[Eauz]

Exploitation

Exploitation is making use of some vulnerability in another person in order to use them to attain one’s own ends at their expense. In particular, wage labour is a form of exploitation in which the working class is exploited by capital.

Marx defined the “rate of exploitation”, also referred to as the rate of surplus value, as the proportion of unpaid, surplus labour a worker performs for their employer to the necessary labour workers perform, producing the value equivalent of the wage they are paid.

In his enquiry into the source of surplus value in Capital, Marx showed how the accumulation of wealth rested on the lengthening of the working day beyond what a worker needs to work to produce their own needs. In doing so, he also demonstrated that this constituted a form of exploitation, that is to say, that the profit a capitalist makes for themself by means of wage labour is acquired unjustly.

This ethical component of Capital has been a point of controversy over the years because Marx himself denied that his work had an ethical foundation and instead promoted Capital as a work of science. See for example his letter to Engels of 4th November 1864 where Marx says that words he was forced to insert in a document about ‘duty’ and ‘right’, and ‘Truth, Morality and Justice’ would “do no harm” and Critique of the Gotha Program where Marx mercilessly criticises notions of “fair distribution” and “equal right": “Do not the bourgeois assert that the present-day distribution is “fair”? And is it not, in fact, the only “fair” distribution on the basis of the present-day mode of production? Are economic relations regulated by legal conceptions, or do not, on the contrary, legal relations arise out of economic ones?”

In Capital, Marx repeatedly demonstrates that the exploitation of wage labour arises precisely on the basis of the exchange of equivalents, on the payment of wages at their value. In other words, the exploitation of labour is just and fair within bourgeois society, a society based on exchange of commodities. Nevertheless, Capital is replete with value-laden, emotive words which make it clear that Capital is just as much a denunciation of capitalism as unjust and inhuman as it is a work of dispassionate science. (See George Brenkert’s Marx’s Ethic of Freedom) For Marx, exploitation is inseparable from “fairness”.

The question then is this. If notions of Justice (for example) arise only on the basis of definite historical forms of production relations, and the exploitation of wage labour is just and fair within capitalism, from what standpoint does Marx condemn the exploitation of wage labour? Clearly only from the standpoint of socialism. From the standpoint of the working class, that is, from the standpoint of socialism, the whole of bourgeois society, with its exchange of commodities, free trade and equal rights before the law, is unjust and deserves to be overthrown. But it cannot be so criticised from the standpoint of “fair distribution”, “equal enjoyment of the proceeds of labour” and so on in the manner of the Lassallean program, but only from the historically higher standpoint of the abolition of exchange of commodities, money and wage-labour altogether.

That Marx regards the inhuman, degrading and exploitative conditions of bourgeois society as arising from the exchange of commodities, and not just from wage labour and capital, is made clear in Marx's early Comment on James Mill.

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/e/x.htm

[Social_Critic]

How is exploitation defined?
Who exploits whom and why?

Eauz's a Marxist definition, but I use the capitalist definition.

When we say exploit something we mean we take advantage of it for selfish reasons - we want to make a profit. Under a savage socialism (aka fascist) model such as has evolved in People's Republic of China, there's very little regulation, so the elites can exploit the working class and the workers have very little recourse. In most democratic capitalist societies, labour laws have emerged to control the selfish nature of the elites who invest.

the For example, let's say I know there's a skilled labor force able to assemble pumps in Indonesia, or one can be trained. I can start a factory and train them, and I can exploit this situation to my advantage making pumps for the local market. The key to induce the selfish investor like me is to allow labour unions to emerge and also pass labour laws which protect worker safety etc. Again, as we saw in the Soviet Union and other communist societies, the fact that the elites are the communists who own the means of production and also control government means they exploit the hell out of the workers, and god forgive any who try to form an independent union. When the communists lost their nerve in Poland and Solidarnosc emerged under Walesa, the communists were doomed - only Soviet troops would have been able to keep the communists in power at the time, and Gorbachov wasn't too keen on using troops after the mess they had in Afghanistan.

I have a message for the communists who post here, based on real life observation, life inside communist systems, and seeing what was left as we dismantled the Soviet Union: Not only was Marx wrong, today he is utterly obsolete as far as modern democracies are concerned.

Marxism never made much sense because it's based on a flawed reading of human nature - Marx and Engels were men who never had to earn a living, and some of their lessons learned about the exploitation of labour were done looking at it from above, as members of the bourguesie or the upper castes. Because they had a limited understanding of the way things work, they didn't realize that the emergence of a monolithic state ruled by a communist elite was the logical end point of their proposed system, and such a powerful elite would then go on to explooit ruthlessly the working class - under communism there's nothing to keep their greed and venality in check. This is why the requisite to take communists out of power is usually the power that flows from the barrel of a gun. Rotten, corrupt communist elites don't go quietly. At best they turn fascists as they did in China and are doing in Cuba.

[Eauz]

Eauz's a Marxist definition, but I use the capitalist definition.

Good for you, but considering this is the socialism sub-forum, it makes sense that you would look at the socialist/communist definition, as this is what the OP asked for.

[Social_Critic]

I did look at it. I assume this isn't an inbred forum where you deny non-communists the right to express themselves. I am an enemy of communism, so of course I would not share your ideas.

[Eauz]

SC, don't be idiotic. The OP asked in the socialism sub-forum what exploitation meant. If the user wanted to know what it meant in capitalist terms, they would have asked it in that sub-forum. It does not make sense why a user would want to know various definitions, if the user posted it in a specific ideology sub-forum.

[mum]

SC, Eauz will probably have you and your family all sent to jail or murdered (In the hypothetical forum sense) for your disobedience.

That raises an interesting question, do the communist/fascist sub forums allow freedom of speech ?

[KurtFF8]

Why is it that right-wingers/anti-communists try to constantly victimize themselves with this "MY FREEDOMS! are being attacked!" silliness?

[The American Lion]

Why is it that right-wingers/anti-communists try to constantly victimize themselves with this "MY FREEDOMS! are being attacked!" silliness?

Wait a sec? Have you been following my posts on Facebook? Right wingers attack me with that response as well when I debate about the ethics and morality of Sweat shops!

"What about the FREEDOM of workers and owners agreeing to set labor pricing or labor conditions!"

[Social_Critic]

Exactly. Freedom is needed for labour to have a chance to organize and fight for better conditions. I don't see why it's idiotic to visit a communist forum and make anti-communist comments. Look at it this way, if I'm wrong, then you can sharpen your arguments debating me. If I'm right, then you avoid following the wrong path.

And I'm very serious about this issue, I think it's critical for the functions of government/regulation and ownership of the means of production to be separated. If they are joined under one entity, then human greed takes over and what follows is what we see in the "People's Republic of China", nominally a nation led by a communist party which is now practicing a form of savage socialism aka fascist oligarchy dictatorship.

I suppose some of my arguments are beyond you precisely because you are somewhat inbred - now go chew over what I posted above, because I'm a hell of a lot smarter than you think and I'm a lot more time worn, and I have been fighting communists for a long time. I am for real.

[KurtFF8]

If they are joined under one entity, then human greed takes over

How would it be "sharpening arguments" to engage with high school text book style positions like this one?

[Eauz]

Goodness, this is why I loathe those who promote rights, rights, rights, without taking in to consideration the responsibility that comes with it.

Nevertheless, here is how the thread went. Some user posted a question in the socialism sub-forum, asking what exploitation is. SC comes in and posts his opinion about how the socialist definition is somehow incorrect and does a bit of trolling against socialism. Then I come in and answer the OP's question and get a whining answer about how I'm suppressing free speech and all. Get over it! No one is deleted your posts, nor have they said that you are wrong or we want to silence you. You're making too much of what I said.

At some point in your life, hopefully before you die, you really should understand that with the ability to have rights, provided by the state, you have to be responsible to yourself and your citizens around you. I am tired of people instantly jumping to conclusions of governments or individual's actions, as if they are the next Hitler/Stalin trying to keep them from having an opinion. Not everyone is a special star, but stars exist, even if they are not special. Get off your high horse and stop acting like a child.

[The American Lion]

Freedom is needed for labour to have a chance to organize and fight for better conditions.

From your Libertarian standpoint (I am assumed you are an libertarian. It has been a long time since I posted on POFO.). Do you really believe that workers do have "freedom" really have the ability to organize and fight like in a "free" country in the United States?

[stsoc]

According to labor theory of property (not too be confused with labor theory of value) capitalism is exploatation because the employer steals from his employees.

If property comes into being by being a product of labor, as Proudhon asked- how come the worker cannot buy what he made?

To show the inconsistency of capitalism with that principle, here is a striped down example of capitalist enterprise. One workshop, 1 owner, 1 employee, that makes 1 item a day, which is sold for 100$. How much will the employee receive as his daily salary? Surely less then the owner will take for himself, even though he hasn't labored at all.

The capitalist doesn't labor, yet has income. Being that income cannot be generated without someone's labor, the conclusion is that the capitalist lives of other people's labor. That's exploatation.

[Malatant of Shadow]

What I've found is that people tend to get power and abuse it, and this is more likely to happen under a Socialist/Communist system, or a fascist system, because those two, which in the end are very similar, involve state control or silencing of the media, as well as labour unions.

If socialism did involve state control or silencing of the media, that might be so. As it does not, you're full of it.

[chefboy812]

According to labor theory of property (not too be confused with labor theory of value) capitalism is exploatation because the employer steals from his employees.

If property comes into being by being a product of labor, as Proudhon asked- how come the worker cannot buy what he made?

To show the inconsistency of capitalism with that principle, here is a striped down example of capitalist enterprise. One workshop, 1 owner, 1 employee, that makes 1 item a day, which is sold for 100$. How much will the employee receive as his daily salary? Surely less then the owner will take for himself, even though he hasn't labored at all.

The capitalist doesn't labor, yet has income. Being that income cannot be generated without someone's labor, the conclusion is that the capitalist lives of other people's labor. That's exploatation.

The capitalist has taken out a loan to buy the machinery, materials, pay rents, insurance, gov't bribes, marketing etc to employ 1 person to make 1 item. Surely the capitalist is entitled to more. Capitalist will also loose money if the 1 item isn't sold as the employee still gets paid. That's reality.

[mum]

According to labor theory of property (not too be confused with labor theory of value) capitalism is exploatation because the employer steals from his employees.

If property comes into being by being a product of labor, as Proudhon asked- how come the worker cannot buy what he made?

To show the inconsistency of capitalism with that principle, here is a striped down example of capitalist enterprise. One workshop, 1 owner, 1 employee, that makes 1 item a day, which is sold for 100$. How much will the employee receive as his daily salary? Surely less then the owner will take for himself, even though he hasn't labored at all.

The capitalist doesn't labor, yet has income. Being that income cannot be generated without someone's labor, the conclusion is that the capitalist lives of other people's labor. That's exploatation.

This workshop you speak of... What happens if the owner misjudges his market and makes a loss? I bet he doesn't pass that on to his employee. He may or may not sack the employee, if he thinks the loss is temporary and the employee is a good worker, he would be crazy to sack him. If the employee is useless then he should sack him regardless. If he pays too little he won't get an employee, if he pays too much he might not save much and go broke. Where is the stealing and exploitation ?

Stealing is taking something from someone without their permission. If I employ someone to sweep the floor and stack boxes in my business, and we agree on x$/hr, there is no stealing. It is an agreement.

If someone offers me money to make them something and I agree, where is the stealing?

PLEASE someone explain to me, where the stealing is !

[stsoc]

Where is the stealing and exploitation ?

Have you ever read what I wrote? Property comes from labor. Right to property = right to the full product of one's labor. The owner existing and taking anything without directly contributing by labor- is theft and exploatation.