2604:3d08:497f:e590:b8ec:2338:38a4:b30b (talk) →Surplus labour and labour theory of value: fixed incorrect double negative use and improved tense |
Expansion Tags: Reverted Visual edit |
||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
[[Karl Marx]] is considered the most classical and influential theorist of exploitation. In analyzing exploitation, economists are split on the explanation of the exploitation of labour given by Marx and [[Adam Smith]]. Smith did not see exploitation as an inherent systematic phenomenon in certain economic systems as Marx did, but rather as an optional moral injustice.<ref>Horace L. Fairlamb, 'Adam's Smith's Other Hand: A Capitalist Theory of Exploitation', ''Social Theory and Practice'', 1996.</ref> |
[[Karl Marx]] is considered the most classical and influential theorist of exploitation. In analyzing exploitation, economists are split on the explanation of the exploitation of labour given by Marx and [[Adam Smith]]. Smith did not see exploitation as an inherent systematic phenomenon in certain economic systems as Marx did, but rather as an optional moral injustice.<ref>Horace L. Fairlamb, 'Adam's Smith's Other Hand: A Capitalist Theory of Exploitation', ''Social Theory and Practice'', 1996.</ref> |
||
== |
== Marxism == |
||
{{Marxian economics}} |
{{Marxian economics}} |
||
Between 1861 and 1863, [[Karl Marx]] wrote the theory of [[surplus value]], which is central to his exposition of exploitation in capitalist production. This was based on an engagement with [[classical political economy]]. For [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]], the explanation of the exploitation of the working class under capitalism was Marx's second great discovery, along with his [[materialist conception of history]], which elevated [[Scientific socialism|socialism to a science]].<ref>{{Literatur|Autor=Friedrich Engels|Hrsg=Institut für Marxismus-Leninismus beim ZK der SED|Titel=Die Entwicklung des Sozialismus von der Utopie zur Wissenschaft|Sammelwerk=Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Werke (MEW)|Band=19|Auflage=9|Verlag=Dietz Verlag|Ort=Berlin|Datum=1987|Seiten=209|Zitat=Diese beiden großen Entdeckungen: die materialistische Geschichtsauffassung und die Enthüllung des Geheimnisses der kapitalistischen Produktion vermittelst des Mehrwerts verdanken wir Marx. Mit ihnen wurde der Sozialismus eine Wissenschaft […]}}</ref> |
|||
⚫ | Marx's exploitation theory is one of the major elements analyzed in [[Marxian economics]] and some social theorists consider it to be a cornerstone in Marxist thought. Marx credited the [[Scottish Enlightenment]] writers for originally propounding a [[Materialism|materialist]] interpretation of history.<ref>Andrew Reeve, ''Modern Theories of Exploitation''"</ref> In his ''[[Critique of the Gotha Program]]'', Marx set principles that were to govern the distribution of welfare under [[socialism]] and [[communism]]—these principles saw distribution to each person according to their work and needs. Exploitation is when these two principles are not met, when the agents are not receiving according to their work or needs.<ref name="Jon Elster pp. 3-17">Jon Elster, "Exploring Exploitation", ''The Journal of Peace Research'', Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 3-17</ref> This process of exploitation is a part of the redistribution of labour, occurring during the process of separate agents exchanging their current productive labour for social labour set in goods received.<ref name="John E. Roemer 1985, pg 30-65">John E. Roemer, 'Should Marxists be Interested in Exploitation', ''Philosophy & Public Affairs'', Vol. 14, No. 1, 1985, pg 30-65</ref> The labour put forth toward production is embodied in the goods and exploitation occurs when someone purchases a good, with their revenue or wages, for an amount unequal to the total labour he or she has put forth.<ref>John E. Roemer, "Origins of Exploitation and Class: Value Theory of Pre-Capitalist Economy", ''Econometrica'', Vol. 50, No. 1, 1982, pp. 163-192</ref> This labour performed by a population over a certain time period is equal to the labour embodied to the goods that make up the [[net national product]] (NNP). The NNP is then parceled out to the members of the population in some way and this is what creates the two groups, or agents, involved in the exchange of goods: exploiters and exploited.<ref name="John E. Roemer 1985, pg 30-65"/> |
||
⚫ | Marx's exploitation theory is one of the major elements analyzed in [[Marxian economics]] and some social theorists consider it to be a cornerstone in Marxist thought. Marx credited the [[Scottish Enlightenment]] writers for originally propounding a [[Materialism|materialist]] interpretation of history.<ref>Andrew Reeve, ''Modern Theories of Exploitation''"</ref> In his ''[[Critique of the Gotha Program]]'', Marx set principles that were to govern the distribution of welfare under [[socialism]] and [[communism]]—these principles saw distribution to each person according to their work and needs. Exploitation is when these two principles are not met, when the agents are not receiving according to their work or needs.<ref name="Jon Elster pp. 3-17">Jon Elster, "Exploring Exploitation", ''The Journal of Peace Research'', Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 3-17</ref> This process of exploitation is a part of the redistribution of labour, occurring during the process of separate agents exchanging their current productive labour for social labour set in goods received.<ref name="John E. Roemer 1985, pg 30-65">John E. Roemer, 'Should Marxists be Interested in Exploitation', ''Philosophy & Public Affairs'', Vol. 14, No. 1, 1985, pg 30-65</ref> The labour put forth toward production is embodied in the goods and exploitation occurs when someone purchases a good, with their revenue or wages, for an amount unequal to the total labour he or she has put forth.<ref>John E. Roemer, "Origins of Exploitation and Class: Value Theory of Pre-Capitalist Economy", ''Econometrica'', Vol. 50, No. 1, 1982, pp. 163-192</ref> This labour performed by a population over a certain time period is equal to the labour embodied to the goods that make up the [[net national product]] (NNP). The NNP is then parceled out to the members of the population in some way and this is what creates the two groups, or agents, involved in the exchange of goods: exploiters and exploited.<ref name="John E. Roemer 1985, pg 30-65" /> |
||
⚫ | The exploiters are the agents able to command goods, with revenue from their wages, that are embodied with more labour than the exploiters themselves have put forth- based on the exploitative [[Relations of production|social relations]] of [[Capitalist mode of production (Marxist theory)|capitalist production]]. These agents often have class status and ownership of productive assets that aid the optimization of exploitation. The exploiters would typically be the [[bourgeoisie]]. Meanwhile, the exploited are those who receive less than the average product he or she produces. If workers receive an amount equivalent to their average product, there is no revenue left over and therefore these workers cannot enjoy the fruits of their own labours and the difference between what is made and what that can purchase cannot be justified by redistribution according to need.<ref>Jon Elster, "Exploring Exploitation", The Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 3-17</ref> The exploited are the [[proletariat]].<ref name="ReferenceA"/> |
||
⚫ | The exploiters are the agents able to command goods, with revenue from their wages, that are embodied with more labour than the exploiters themselves have put forth- based on the exploitative [[Relations of production|social relations]] of [[Capitalist mode of production (Marxist theory)|capitalist production]]. These agents often have class status and ownership of productive assets that aid the optimization of exploitation. The exploiters would typically be the [[bourgeoisie]]. Meanwhile, the exploited are those who receive less than the average product he or she produces. If workers receive an amount equivalent to their average product, there is no revenue left over and therefore these workers cannot enjoy the fruits of their own labours and the difference between what is made and what that can purchase cannot be justified by redistribution according to need.<ref>Jon Elster, "Exploring Exploitation", The Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 3-17</ref> The exploited are the [[proletariat]].<ref name="ReferenceA" /> |
||
=== Marxist Theory === |
|||
In Marx's major work ''[[Das Kapital]]'', the concept of exploitation is not a moral concept.<ref>{{Literatur|Autor=Michael Heinrich|Titel=Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Eine Einführung.|Auflage=14|Verlag=Schmetterling Verlag|Ort=Stuttgart|Datum=2018|Seiten=94}}</ref> Marx did not claim to make value judgements when he claimed that the capitalist exploits the worker. In the preface to the first edition of the first volume, he explicitly wrote that he did not want to make the individual "responsible for conditions of which he remains the social creature".<ref>{{Literatur|Autor=Karl Marx|Hrsg=Institut für Marxismus-Leninismus beim ZK der SED|Titel=Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Erster Band. Buch I: Der Produktionsprozeß des Kapitals.|Sammelwerk=Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Werke (MEW)|Band=23|Verlag=Dietz Verlag|Ort=Berlin|Datum=1962|Seiten=16|Zitat=Zur Vermeidung möglicher Mißverständnisse ein Wort. Die Gestalten von Kapitalist und Grundeigentümer zeichne ich keinesfalls in rosigem Licht. Aber es handelt sich hier um die Personen nur, soweit sie Personifikation ökonomischer Kategorien sind, Träger von bestimmten Klassenverhältnissen und Interessen. Weniger als jeder andere kann mein Standpunkt, der die Entwicklung der ökonomischen Gesellschaftsformation als einen naturgeschichtlichen Prozeß auffasst, den einzelnen verantwortlich machen für Verhältnisse, deren Geschöpf er sozial bleibt, sosehr er sich auch subjektiv über sie erheben mag.}}</ref> In the context of factory legislation, Marx explicitly stated that the capitalist had to exploit the worker as much as possible in order to maintain himself as a capitalist in competition, and that this was not due to the "bad will" of the capitalist.<ref>{{Literatur|Autor=Karl Marx|Hrsg=Institut für Marxismus-Leninismus beim ZK der SED|Titel=Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Erster Band. Buch I: Der Produktionsprozeß des Kapitals.|Sammelwerk=Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Werke (MEW)|Band=23|Verlag=Dietz Verlag|Ort=Berlin|Datum=1962|Seiten=286|Zitat=Im großen und ganzen hängt dies [die Tatsache, dass die Kapitalverwertung die Arbeitskraftträger physisch stark verschleißt, d. V.] aber auch nicht vom guten oder bösen Willen des einzelnen Kapitalisten ab. Die freie Konkurrenz macht die immanenten Gesetze der kapitalistischen Produktion dem einzelnen Kapitalisten gegenüber als äußerliches Zwangsgesetz geltend.}}</ref> |
|||
Marx did not intend an [[Idealism|idealistic]] critique that measured [[Bourgeoisie|bourgeois]] relations against the idea of justice.<ref>{{Literatur|Autor=Michael Heinrich|Hrsg=Devi Dumbadze/Johannes Geffers/Jan Haut u. a.|Titel=Kritik bei Marx|Sammelwerk=Erkenntnis und Kritik. Zeitgenössische Positionen|Verlag=transcript Verlag|Ort=Bielefeld|Datum=2009|Seiten=46|Zitat=Allerdings muss man sich hier [= im Falle von Marx' Gesellschaftskritik, d. V.] vor zwei häufigen Missverständnissen hüten. Es geht Marx weder darum, die Wahrheit von Freiheit, Gleichheit und Eigentum gegen ihre bürgerliche Verzerrung einzuklagen. Im Gegenteil, dieser Kritikmodus, der Versuch, die bürgerlichen Ideale gegen die schlechte bürgerliche Wirklichkeit auszuspielen, der wird von Marx ebenfalls kritisiert. Es geht Marx aber auch nicht um eine Kritik am Kapitalismus von irgendeinem moralischen Standpunkt aus. Wann immer er im Kapital auf eine solche moralische Kritik zu sprechen kommt, macht er sich darüber lustig.}}</ref> The fact that the capitalist exploits the worker is not an injustice. According to Marx, it does not violate the law of value of commodity exchange.<ref>{{Literatur|Autor=Michael Heinrich|Titel=Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Eine Einführung.|Auflage=14|Verlag=Schmetterling Verlag|Ort=Stuttgart|Datum=2018|Seiten=94}}</ref> Marx was also later very sceptical about the idea that in a communist society based on co-operative production, the worker should simply receive his entire labour product. In "[[Critique of the Gotha Programme]]" he criticised bourgeois as well as socialist ideas of fair distribution.<ref>{{Literatur|Autor=Karl Marx|Hrsg=Institut für Marxismus-Leninismus beim ZK der SED|Titel=Kritik des Gothaer Programms|Sammelwerk=Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Werke (MEW)|WerkErg=|Band=19|Auflage=9|Verlag=Dietz Verlag|Ort=Berlin|Datum=1987|Seiten=18|Zitat=Was ist "gerechte" Verteilung? Behaupten die Bourgeois nicht, daß die heutige Verteilung "gerecht" ist? Und ist sie in der Tat nicht die einzige "gerechte" Verteilung auf Grundlage der heutigen Produktionsweise? Werden die ökonomischen Verhältnisse durch Rechtsbegriffe geregelt, oder entspringen nicht umgekehrt die Rechtsverhältnisse den ökonomischen? Haben nicht auch die sozialistischen Sektierer die verschiedenen Vorstellungen über "gerechte" Verteilung?}}</ref> This concerned above all [[Ferdinand Lassalle]]'s demand for an unabridged labour yield.<ref>{{Literatur|Autor=Karl Marx|Hrsg=Institut für Marxismus-Leninismus beim ZK der SED|Titel=Kritik des Gothaer Programms|Sammelwerk=Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Werke (MEW)|Band=19|Auflage=9|Verlag=Dietz Verlag|Ort=Berlin|Datum=1987|Seiten=18-19|Zitat=Nehmen wir zunächst das Wort "Arbeitsertrag" im Sinne des Produkts der Arbeit, so ist der genossenschaftliche Arbeitsertrag das gesellschaftliche Gesamtprodukt. Davon ist nun abzuziehen: Erstens: Deckung zum Ersatz der verbrauchten Produktionsmittel. Zweitens: zusätzlicher Teil für Ausdehnung der Produktion. Drittens: Reserve- oder Assekuranzfonds gegen Mißfälle, Störungen durch Naturereignisse etc. Diese Abzüge vom "unverkürzten Arbeitsertrag" sind eine ökonomische Notwendigkeit, und ihre Größe ist zu bestimmen nach vorhandenen Mitteln und Kräften [...], aber sie sind in keiner Weise aus der Gerechtigkeit kalkulierbar.}}</ref> |
|||
Furthermore, Marx did not think that exploitation always had to mean that the exploited had a low wage or standard of living. This could rise in times of increased demand for labour.<ref>{{Literatur|Autor=Karl Marx|Hrsg=Institut für Marxismus-Leninismus beim ZK der SED|Titel=Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Erster Band. Buch I: Der Produktionsprozeß des Kapitals.|Sammelwerk=Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Werke (MEW)|Band=23|Verlag=Dietz Verlag|Ort=Berlin|Datum=1962|Seiten=646|Zitat=Von ihrem [= der Arbeiter, d. V.] eignen anschwellenden und schwellend in Zusatzkapital verwandelten Mehrprodukt strömt ihnen ein größerer Teil in der Form von Zahlungsmitteln zurück, so daß sie den Kreis ihrer Genüsse erweitern, ihren Konsumtionsfonds von Kleidern, Möbeln usw. besser ausstatten und kleine Reservefonds von Geld bilden können. So wenig aber bessere Kleidung, Nahrung, Behandlung und ein größeres Peculium das Abhängigkeitsverhältnis und die Exploitation des Sklaven aufheben, so wenig die des Lohnarbeiters. Steigender Preis der Arbeit infolge der Akkumulation des Kapitals besagt in der Tat nur, daß der Umfang und die Wucht der goldnen Kette, die der Lohnarbeiter sich selbst bereits geschmiedet hat, ihre losere Spannung erlauben.}}</ref> |
|||
As a central concept of Marx's [[Das Kapital|critique of political economy]] and Marxist [[Historical materialism|theory of history and society]], exploitation refers to a class relationship or the unremunerated appropriation of other people's labour power and other people's labour products, which goes beyond the work necessary to maintain labour power. Exploitation is therefore the appropriation of [[surplus labour]] and the resulting [[surplus product]]. If, for example, 6 hours of labour are necessary daily to maintain the worker and his labour power, but he works 8 hours, he has done 2 hours of extra labour. If the product of this surplus labour is extorted from another person, the worker has been exploited in this sense. |
|||
In class societies, the members of the exploiting class have the labour power of the exploited and the essential social means of production. In order for a class to form whose members can permanently and securely appropriate the surplus product of another class, a certain social [[Productive forces|productive power]] of labour must have been achieved; otherwise the existence of the exploited is endangered.<ref>Marx: ''Das Kapital'', MEW 23: 534. „Braucht der Arbeiter alle seine Zeit, um die zur Erhaltung seiner selbst und seiner Race nötigen Lebensmittel zu produzieren, so bleibt ihm keine Zeit, um unentgeltlich für dritte Personen zu arbeiten. Ohne einen gewissen Produktivitätsgrad der Arbeit keine solche disponible Zeit für den Arbeiter, ohne solche überschüssige Zeit keine Mehrarbeit und daher keine Kapitalisten, aber auch keine Sklavenhalter, keine [[Feudalismus|Feudalbarone]], in einem Wort keine Großbesitzerklasse.“</ref> Depending on the social [[mode of production]], the [[relations of production]] through which the surplus product is appropriated differ from "direct forced labour" as in [[slavery]] to "mediated forced labour" as in wage labour.<ref name="Kapital 231">Marx: ''Das Kapital'', MEW 23: 231. "Nur die Form, worin diese Mehrarbeit dem unmittelbaren Produzenten, dem Arbeiter, abgepreßt wird, unterscheidet die ökonomischen [[Gesellschaftsformation|Gesellschaftsformationen]], beispielsweise die Gesellschaft der Sklaverei von der der Lohnarbeit."</ref> |
|||
=== Slavery, feudalism & transition to capitalist production === |
|||
[[Primitive communism|Primitive communist]] [[Tribe|tribal societies]] were preceded by class societies. According to Engels, "under the given overall historical conditions, the first significant increases in productivity necessarily led to slavery. From the first great social division of labour sprang the first great division of society into two classes: Masters and slaves, exploiters and exploited." The first opportunity presented itself when tribes waged war against each other and robbed members of foreign tribes whom they could enslave. While slavery was "the first form of exploitation peculiar to the ancient world" and experienced its heyday there, it did not remain limited to that.<ref>Engels: ''Der Ursprung der Familie, des Privateigentums und des Staats'', MEW 21: 170. „Die Sklaverei ist die erste, der [[Sklavenhaltergesellschaft|antiken Welt eigentümliche Form der Ausbeutung]]: ihr folgt die [[Leibeigenschaft]] im Mittelalter, die Lohnarbeit in der neueren Zeit. Es sind dies die drei großen Formen der Knechtschaft, wie sie für die drei großen Epochen der Zivilisation charakteristisch sind; offne, und neuerdings verkleidete, Sklaverei geht stets danebenher.“</ref> Rather, it lasted throughout the "civilised period" and was also an important moment in the development of capitalism in the form of [[colonialism]]. |
|||
In the Middle Ages, the attachment of the masses of the people "to the soil was the basis of [[Feudalism|feudal]] pressure".<ref>{{Literatur|Autor=Friedrich Engels|Hrsg=Institut für Marxismus-Leninismus beim ZK der SED|Titel=Die Arbeiterbewegung in Amerika. Vorwort zur amerikanischen Ausgabe der "Lage der arbeitenden Klasse in England"|Sammelwerk=Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Werke (MEW)|Band=21|Verlag=Dietz Verlag|Ort=Berlin|Datum=1962|Seiten=339|Zitat=Im Mittelalter war keineswegs die Enteignung der Volksmassen vom Boden, sondern vielmehr ihre Aneignung an den Boden die Grundlage des feudalen Drucks. Der Bauer behielt seine Heimstätte, wurde aber als Leibeigner oder Höriger an sie gefesselt und hatte dem Grundherrn Tribut in Arbeit oder in Produkten zu leisten.}}</ref> The peasants, as serfs or bondmen, were bound to a certain soil and had to provide products or services to the landlord. |
|||
Marx described the change to capitalist exploitation in the 24th chapter of the first volume of "Das Kapital" under the keyword [[Primitive accumulation of capital|original accumulation]]. Marx defines this as the process that created two special classes: the owners of money, production and food, who exploit them by buying labour power from others, and the wage-dependent workers, who have to sell their labour power to the former. The process was nothing other "than the historical process of divorce between the producer and the means of production."<ref name="MEW 23: 742">Marx: ''Das Kapital'', MEW 23: 742</ref> Using England as an example, Marx showed how landlords drove peasants off the land to raise sheep; the state helped the landlords by force and forced the dispossessed peasants into capitalist factories and their discipline.<ref>{{Literatur|Autor=Michael Heinrich|Titel=Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Eine Einführung|Auflage=14|Verlag=Schmetterling Verlag|Ort=Stuttgart|Datum=2018|Seiten=209-210}}</ref> Thus, contrary to the assumption of classical political economy, the process was not primarily based on the thrift and industriousness of individuals. Rather, the process is based on "conquest, subjugation, robbery-murder, in short, violence".<ref name="MEW 23: 7422">Marx: ''Das Kapital'', MEW 23: 742</ref> Similar processes can be repeated worldwide where the capitalist mode of production is spreading.<ref>{{Literatur|Autor=Michael Heinrich|Titel=Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Eine Einführung|Auflage=14|Verlag=Schmetterling Verlag|Ort=Stuttgart|Datum=2018|Seiten=89}}</ref> |
|||
=== Movement of capital, value of labour power, surplus value production === |
|||
According to Marx, the value of each commodity in capitalism is measured by the average social labour time required to produce it ([[Labor theory of value|labour theory of value]]). Although value appears in the form of money, prices can also be above or below value. In the first volume of Capital, Marx assumes that the price of a commodity corresponds to its value and that when two commodities are exchanged for each other, both are of equal value. Under these assumptions he tries to explain how the growth of value expressed by the general formula of capital movement G-W-G' is possible.<ref>{{Literatur|Autor=Michael Heinrich|Titel=Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Eine Einführung.|Auflage=14|Verlag=Schmetterling Verlag|Ort=Stuttgart|Datum=2018|Seiten=87}}</ref> The capitalist buys commodities with money in order to make more money, or surplus value, with them. However, if all commodities are exchanged according to labour-value equivalents, surplus-value cannot come exclusively from the sphere of circulation, since only through labour can an increase in value take place. The production of surplus value would therefore also have to be sought in the sphere of production. The capitalist would have to possess a commodity whose "use-value would itself possess the peculiar quality of being the source of value, whose real consumption would therefore itself be the objectification of labour, hence the creation of value. And the money-owner finds such a specific commodity on the market - labour capital or labour-power."<ref>Marx: ''Das Kapital'', MEW 23: 181</ref> |
|||
But the [[Use value|use-value]] of labour-power, to perform [[concrete labour]], is not equal to its [[Exchange value|exchange-value]], the labour necessary to reproduce its labour-power. For a speech to workers, Marx used the following comparison in this regard: "The daily or weekly value of labour-power is quite different from the daily or weekly activity of this power, just as the fodder of which a horse requires is quite different from the time it can carry the rider."<ref>Marx: ''Lohn, Preis, Profit''. MEW 16: 133.</ref> The value of labour power, its wage, is determined, like the value of any other commodity, by the average socially necessary labour time for its reproduction.<ref>{{Literatur|Autor=Karl Marx|Hrsg=Institut für Marxismus-Leninismus beim ZK der SED.|Titel=Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Erster Band. Buch I: Der Produktionsprozeß des Kapitals.|Sammelwerk=Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Werke (MEW)|Band=23|Verlag=Dietz Verlag|Ort=Berlin|Datum=1962|Seiten=185|Zitat=Die zur Produktion der Arbeitskraft notwendige Arbeitszeit löst sich also auf in die zur Produktion dieser Lebensmittel notwendige Arbeitszeit, oder der Wert der Arbeitskraft ist der Wert der zur Erhaltung ihres Besitzers notwendigen Lebensmittel.}}</ref> This value ultimately corresponds to the value of the quantity of food that is considered necessary to reproduce labour power. What is considered necessary depends on historical and moral factors. The amount can vary from country to country and change with cultural development.<ref>{{Literatur|Autor=Karl Marx|Hrsg=Institut für Marxismus-Leninismus beim ZK der SED|Titel=Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Erster Band. Buch I: Der Produktionsprozeß des Kapitals.|Sammelwerk=Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Werke (MEW)|Band=23|Verlag=Dietz Verlag|Ort=Berlin|Datum=1962|Seiten=185|Zitat=Die natürlichen Bedürfnisse selbst, wie Nahrung, Kleidung, Heizung, Wohnung usw., sind verschieden je nach den klimatischen und andren natürlichen Eigentümlichkeiten eines Landes. Andrerseits ist der Umfang sog. notwendiger Bedürfnisse, wie die Art ihrer Befriedigung, selbst ein historisches Produkt und hängt daher großenteils von der Kulturstufe eines Landes, unter andrem auch wesentlich davon ab, unter welchen Bedingungen, und daher mit welchen Gewohnheiten und Lebensansprüchen die Klasse der freien Arbeiter sich gebildet hat. Im Gegensatz zu den andren Waren enthält also die Wertbestimmung der Arbeitskraft ein historisches und moralisches Element. Für ein bestimmtes Land, zu einer bestimmten Periode jedoch, ist der Durchschnitts-Umkreis der notwendigen Lebensmittel gegeben.}}</ref> Marx includes in food not only food, clothing or housing, but also the cost of a worker's family and the educational costs of labour power. |
|||
By producing a new quantity of commodities, the worker transfers the value of the means of production consumed in the process to the new quantity of commodities. There is no change in value, so that Marx speaks of constant capital (c). The worker also creates a new value, which he transfers to the commodities he produces. Of this new value, he receives only a part as wages. The other part, the surplus value (m), is appropriated by the capitalist. Since the capital spent in labour power thus leads to a change in value, Marx speaks of variable capital (v). The capitalist thus advances capital in the value of c+v, the worker creates a new value in the amount of v+m, or a quantity of commodities that has the value c+v+m, and the capitalist appropriates m.<ref>{{Literatur|Autor=Michael Heinrich|Titel=Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Eine Einführung.|Auflage=14|Verlag=Schmetterling Verlag|Ort=Stuttgart|Datum=2018|Seiten=98-100}}</ref> The capitalist's capital and all the surplus value (m) that is created out of it is therefore variable capital (v). The capital employed and all the wealth accumulated from it ([[Accumulation of capital|accumulation]]) is therefore based more and more on the unpaid appropriation of foreign labour power in the wage-labour relationship in the course of capitalist production. |
|||
The production of surplus value takes place only in the sphere of industrial capital. "Industrial" is not limited to industrial complexes, but must be understood in a broad sense. What is meant is any capital that either runs through the cycle G - W ... P ... W' - G' or the cycle G - W ... P - G'.<ref>{{Literatur|Autor=Michael Heinrich|Titel=Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Eine Einführung|Auflage=14|Verlag=Schmetterling Verlag|Ort=Stuttgart|Datum=2018|Seiten=134-135}}</ref> In the first case, the capitalist buys commodities or labour power and means of production, then he has the workers produce a higher-value quantity of commodities and finally he sells them to realise the surplus value. The second formula concerns the performance of services, such as a transport. Here, no commodity body is produced and the service must be consumed during its performance. |
|||
The workers who create value and surplus value are called productive workers by Marx. The unproductive workers, on the other hand, do not create surplus value. These include, for example, workers who do not produce goods for the market, but work for the capitalist in his house as a private cook.<ref>{{Literatur|Autor=Michael Heinrich|Titel=Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Eine Einführung|Auflage=14|Verlag=Schmetterling Verlag|Ort=Stuttgart|Datum=2018|Seiten=120-122}}</ref> Unproductive in this sense are also those workers who work in the sphere of trade and merely exchange money for goods, such as a cashier. Although the cashier's wage is a deduction from surplus value, he can still be exploited by doing extra work.<ref>{{Literatur|Autor=Michael Heinrich|Titel=Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Eine Einführung|Auflage=14|Verlag=Schmetterling Verlag|Ort=Stuttgart|Datum=2018|Seiten=133}}</ref> |
|||
In the simple commodity circulation W-G-W, someone sells a commodity in order to buy another commodity with the money received, which he wants to consume. It is not primarily a matter of value growth and the movement is measured by the need or ends with its satisfaction. In the movement G-W-G', on the other hand, money is both the starting point and the end point. Capital utilisation becomes an end in itself.<ref>{{Literatur|Autor=Karl Marx|Hrsg=Institut für Marxismus-Leninismus beim ZK der SED|Titel=Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Erster Band. Buch I: Der Produktionsprozeß des Kapitals|Sammelwerk=Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Werke (MEW)|Band=23|Verlag=Dietz Verlag|Ort=Berlin|Datum=1962|Seiten=166|Zitat=Die Wiederholung oder Erneuerung des Verkaufs, um zu kaufen, findet, wie dieser Prozeß selbst, Maß und Ziel an einem außer ihm liegenden Endzwecke, der Konsumtion, der Befriedigung bestimmter Bedürfnisse. Im Kauf für den Verkauf dagegen sind Anfang und Ende dasselbe, Geld, Tauschwert, und schon dadurch ist die Bewegung endlos.}}</ref> There is no end immanent in the movement, since every utilised capital appears as a finite sum of money G' and must again become the starting point of a new movement in order to remain capital. The movement is excessive, since it is not related to anything external or to a need that could determine a sufficiency. The capitalist makes this movement his subjective purpose. He gives it consciousness and will and thus becomes "personified capital".<ref>{{Literatur|Autor=Karl Marx|Hrsg=Institut für Marxismus-Leninismus beim ZK der SED|Titel=Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Erster Band. Buch I: Der Produktionsprozeß des Kapitals|Sammelwerk=Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Werke (MEW)|Band=23|Verlag=Dietz Verlag|Ort=Berlin|Datum=1962|Seiten=167-168|Zitat=Als bewußter Träger dieser Bewegung wird der Geldbesitzer Kapitalist. Seine Person, oder vielmehr seine Tasche, ist der Ausgangspunkt und der Rückkehrpunkt des Geldes. Der objektive Inhalt jener Zirkulation – die Verwertung des Werts – ist sein subjektiver Zweck, und nur soweit wachsende Aneignung des abstrakten Reichtums das allein treibende Motiv seiner Operationen, funktioniert er als Kapitalist oder personifiziertes, mit Willen und Bewußtsein begabtes Kapital.}}</ref> The individual capitalist does not act in the first place according to the form determinations of capital because he is greedy. In order to remain a capitalist, he must always have enough money to modernise his enterprise and thus be able to survive in competition.<ref>{{Literatur|Autor=Michael Heinrich|Titel=Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Eine Einführung|Auflage=14|Verlag=Schmetterling Verlag|Ort=Stuttgart|Datum=2018|Seiten=85}}</ref> |
|||
=== Mystification of the wage === |
|||
Due to the mystification of wages, the common form of consciousness arises that wages do not pay the value of labour power, but the value of labour.<ref>{{Literatur|Autor=Michael Heinrich|Titel=Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Eine Einführung.|Auflage=14|Verlag=Schmetterling Verlag|Ort=Stuttgart|Datum=2018|Seiten=94-96}}</ref> Exploitation is thus not so easily recognisable. Marx described the expression value of labour as an imaginary expression.<ref>Marx: ''Das Kapital'', MEW 23: 562. "Die Form des Arbeitslohns löscht [...] jede Spur der Teilung des Arbeitstags in notwendige Arbeit und Mehrarbeit, in bezahlte und unbezahlte Arbeit aus. Alle Arbeit erscheint als bezahlte Arbeit."</ref> It is true that abstract labour is the substance of value and the measure of value, but it itself has no value. If one were to ask about its value, one would only receive "tawdry tautology[s]" as an answer.<ref>{{Literatur|Autor=Michael Heinrich|Titel=Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Eine Einführung|Auflage=14|Verlag=Schmetterling Verlag|Ort=Stuttgart|Datum=2018|Seiten=94-95}}</ref> Thus, one could only say that the value of 12 hours of labour, for example, corresponds to the value of 12 hours of labour. Marx exposed the false pretence. The worker could not sell his labour to the capitalist, since it would have to exist before the sale. If the wage were the value of the labour performed and if the worker did not receive the entire new value, then the laws of commodity exchange would be violated. If the wage were the value of the labour performed and the worker received the whole new value, then the capitalist would not be able to receive surplus value; consequently, a foundation of the capitalist mode of production would be undermined. |
|||
Marx explained the mystification by pointing to several factors. One factor, he said, was that the worker always had to work the whole contracted working day in order to be paid. The capitalist, on the other hand, explains his profit by buying below value or selling above value. Imaginary expressions in which the existing state of affairs is misrepresented thus arise from the relations of production themselves. |
|||
Equally mystifying is the fact that the worker changes from one capitalist to another and that he concludes contracts. This leads to the false appearance that the worker is free. |
|||
=== Surplus labour and labour theory of value === |
=== Surplus labour and labour theory of value === |
Revision as of 05:10, 24 December 2020
Exploitation of labour is the act of using power to systematically extract more value from workers than is given to them. It is a social relationship based on an asymmetry of power between workers and their employers. When speaking about exploitation, there is a direct affiliation with consumption in social theory and traditionally this would label exploitation as unfairly taking advantage of another person because of their inferior position, giving the exploiter the power.[1]
Karl Marx is considered the most classical and influential theorist of exploitation. In analyzing exploitation, economists are split on the explanation of the exploitation of labour given by Marx and Adam Smith. Smith did not see exploitation as an inherent systematic phenomenon in certain economic systems as Marx did, but rather as an optional moral injustice.[2]
Marxism
Part of a series on |
Marxian economics |
---|
Between 1861 and 1863, Karl Marx wrote the theory of surplus value, which is central to his exposition of exploitation in capitalist production. This was based on an engagement with classical political economy. For Engels, the explanation of the exploitation of the working class under capitalism was Marx's second great discovery, along with his materialist conception of history, which elevated socialism to a science.[3]
Marx's exploitation theory is one of the major elements analyzed in Marxian economics and some social theorists consider it to be a cornerstone in Marxist thought. Marx credited the Scottish Enlightenment writers for originally propounding a materialist interpretation of history.[4] In his Critique of the Gotha Program, Marx set principles that were to govern the distribution of welfare under socialism and communism—these principles saw distribution to each person according to their work and needs. Exploitation is when these two principles are not met, when the agents are not receiving according to their work or needs.[5] This process of exploitation is a part of the redistribution of labour, occurring during the process of separate agents exchanging their current productive labour for social labour set in goods received.[6] The labour put forth toward production is embodied in the goods and exploitation occurs when someone purchases a good, with their revenue or wages, for an amount unequal to the total labour he or she has put forth.[7] This labour performed by a population over a certain time period is equal to the labour embodied to the goods that make up the net national product (NNP). The NNP is then parceled out to the members of the population in some way and this is what creates the two groups, or agents, involved in the exchange of goods: exploiters and exploited.[6]
The exploiters are the agents able to command goods, with revenue from their wages, that are embodied with more labour than the exploiters themselves have put forth- based on the exploitative social relations of capitalist production. These agents often have class status and ownership of productive assets that aid the optimization of exploitation. The exploiters would typically be the bourgeoisie. Meanwhile, the exploited are those who receive less than the average product he or she produces. If workers receive an amount equivalent to their average product, there is no revenue left over and therefore these workers cannot enjoy the fruits of their own labours and the difference between what is made and what that can purchase cannot be justified by redistribution according to need.[8] The exploited are the proletariat.[1]
Marxist Theory
In Marx's major work Das Kapital, the concept of exploitation is not a moral concept.[9] Marx did not claim to make value judgements when he claimed that the capitalist exploits the worker. In the preface to the first edition of the first volume, he explicitly wrote that he did not want to make the individual "responsible for conditions of which he remains the social creature".[10] In the context of factory legislation, Marx explicitly stated that the capitalist had to exploit the worker as much as possible in order to maintain himself as a capitalist in competition, and that this was not due to the "bad will" of the capitalist.[11]
Marx did not intend an idealistic critique that measured bourgeois relations against the idea of justice.[12] The fact that the capitalist exploits the worker is not an injustice. According to Marx, it does not violate the law of value of commodity exchange.[13] Marx was also later very sceptical about the idea that in a communist society based on co-operative production, the worker should simply receive his entire labour product. In "Critique of the Gotha Programme" he criticised bourgeois as well as socialist ideas of fair distribution.[14] This concerned above all Ferdinand Lassalle's demand for an unabridged labour yield.[15]
Furthermore, Marx did not think that exploitation always had to mean that the exploited had a low wage or standard of living. This could rise in times of increased demand for labour.[16]
As a central concept of Marx's critique of political economy and Marxist theory of history and society, exploitation refers to a class relationship or the unremunerated appropriation of other people's labour power and other people's labour products, which goes beyond the work necessary to maintain labour power. Exploitation is therefore the appropriation of surplus labour and the resulting surplus product. If, for example, 6 hours of labour are necessary daily to maintain the worker and his labour power, but he works 8 hours, he has done 2 hours of extra labour. If the product of this surplus labour is extorted from another person, the worker has been exploited in this sense.
In class societies, the members of the exploiting class have the labour power of the exploited and the essential social means of production. In order for a class to form whose members can permanently and securely appropriate the surplus product of another class, a certain social productive power of labour must have been achieved; otherwise the existence of the exploited is endangered.[17] Depending on the social mode of production, the relations of production through which the surplus product is appropriated differ from "direct forced labour" as in slavery to "mediated forced labour" as in wage labour.[18]
Slavery, feudalism & transition to capitalist production
Primitive communist tribal societies were preceded by class societies. According to Engels, "under the given overall historical conditions, the first significant increases in productivity necessarily led to slavery. From the first great social division of labour sprang the first great division of society into two classes: Masters and slaves, exploiters and exploited." The first opportunity presented itself when tribes waged war against each other and robbed members of foreign tribes whom they could enslave. While slavery was "the first form of exploitation peculiar to the ancient world" and experienced its heyday there, it did not remain limited to that.[19] Rather, it lasted throughout the "civilised period" and was also an important moment in the development of capitalism in the form of colonialism.
In the Middle Ages, the attachment of the masses of the people "to the soil was the basis of feudal pressure".[20] The peasants, as serfs or bondmen, were bound to a certain soil and had to provide products or services to the landlord.
Marx described the change to capitalist exploitation in the 24th chapter of the first volume of "Das Kapital" under the keyword original accumulation. Marx defines this as the process that created two special classes: the owners of money, production and food, who exploit them by buying labour power from others, and the wage-dependent workers, who have to sell their labour power to the former. The process was nothing other "than the historical process of divorce between the producer and the means of production."[21] Using England as an example, Marx showed how landlords drove peasants off the land to raise sheep; the state helped the landlords by force and forced the dispossessed peasants into capitalist factories and their discipline.[22] Thus, contrary to the assumption of classical political economy, the process was not primarily based on the thrift and industriousness of individuals. Rather, the process is based on "conquest, subjugation, robbery-murder, in short, violence".[23] Similar processes can be repeated worldwide where the capitalist mode of production is spreading.[24]
Movement of capital, value of labour power, surplus value production
According to Marx, the value of each commodity in capitalism is measured by the average social labour time required to produce it (labour theory of value). Although value appears in the form of money, prices can also be above or below value. In the first volume of Capital, Marx assumes that the price of a commodity corresponds to its value and that when two commodities are exchanged for each other, both are of equal value. Under these assumptions he tries to explain how the growth of value expressed by the general formula of capital movement G-W-G' is possible.[25] The capitalist buys commodities with money in order to make more money, or surplus value, with them. However, if all commodities are exchanged according to labour-value equivalents, surplus-value cannot come exclusively from the sphere of circulation, since only through labour can an increase in value take place. The production of surplus value would therefore also have to be sought in the sphere of production. The capitalist would have to possess a commodity whose "use-value would itself possess the peculiar quality of being the source of value, whose real consumption would therefore itself be the objectification of labour, hence the creation of value. And the money-owner finds such a specific commodity on the market - labour capital or labour-power."[26]
But the use-value of labour-power, to perform concrete labour, is not equal to its exchange-value, the labour necessary to reproduce its labour-power. For a speech to workers, Marx used the following comparison in this regard: "The daily or weekly value of labour-power is quite different from the daily or weekly activity of this power, just as the fodder of which a horse requires is quite different from the time it can carry the rider."[27] The value of labour power, its wage, is determined, like the value of any other commodity, by the average socially necessary labour time for its reproduction.[28] This value ultimately corresponds to the value of the quantity of food that is considered necessary to reproduce labour power. What is considered necessary depends on historical and moral factors. The amount can vary from country to country and change with cultural development.[29] Marx includes in food not only food, clothing or housing, but also the cost of a worker's family and the educational costs of labour power.
By producing a new quantity of commodities, the worker transfers the value of the means of production consumed in the process to the new quantity of commodities. There is no change in value, so that Marx speaks of constant capital (c). The worker also creates a new value, which he transfers to the commodities he produces. Of this new value, he receives only a part as wages. The other part, the surplus value (m), is appropriated by the capitalist. Since the capital spent in labour power thus leads to a change in value, Marx speaks of variable capital (v). The capitalist thus advances capital in the value of c+v, the worker creates a new value in the amount of v+m, or a quantity of commodities that has the value c+v+m, and the capitalist appropriates m.[30] The capitalist's capital and all the surplus value (m) that is created out of it is therefore variable capital (v). The capital employed and all the wealth accumulated from it (accumulation) is therefore based more and more on the unpaid appropriation of foreign labour power in the wage-labour relationship in the course of capitalist production.
The production of surplus value takes place only in the sphere of industrial capital. "Industrial" is not limited to industrial complexes, but must be understood in a broad sense. What is meant is any capital that either runs through the cycle G - W ... P ... W' - G' or the cycle G - W ... P - G'.[31] In the first case, the capitalist buys commodities or labour power and means of production, then he has the workers produce a higher-value quantity of commodities and finally he sells them to realise the surplus value. The second formula concerns the performance of services, such as a transport. Here, no commodity body is produced and the service must be consumed during its performance.
The workers who create value and surplus value are called productive workers by Marx. The unproductive workers, on the other hand, do not create surplus value. These include, for example, workers who do not produce goods for the market, but work for the capitalist in his house as a private cook.[32] Unproductive in this sense are also those workers who work in the sphere of trade and merely exchange money for goods, such as a cashier. Although the cashier's wage is a deduction from surplus value, he can still be exploited by doing extra work.[33]
In the simple commodity circulation W-G-W, someone sells a commodity in order to buy another commodity with the money received, which he wants to consume. It is not primarily a matter of value growth and the movement is measured by the need or ends with its satisfaction. In the movement G-W-G', on the other hand, money is both the starting point and the end point. Capital utilisation becomes an end in itself.[34] There is no end immanent in the movement, since every utilised capital appears as a finite sum of money G' and must again become the starting point of a new movement in order to remain capital. The movement is excessive, since it is not related to anything external or to a need that could determine a sufficiency. The capitalist makes this movement his subjective purpose. He gives it consciousness and will and thus becomes "personified capital".[35] The individual capitalist does not act in the first place according to the form determinations of capital because he is greedy. In order to remain a capitalist, he must always have enough money to modernise his enterprise and thus be able to survive in competition.[36]
Mystification of the wage
Due to the mystification of wages, the common form of consciousness arises that wages do not pay the value of labour power, but the value of labour.[37] Exploitation is thus not so easily recognisable. Marx described the expression value of labour as an imaginary expression.[38] It is true that abstract labour is the substance of value and the measure of value, but it itself has no value. If one were to ask about its value, one would only receive "tawdry tautology[s]" as an answer.[39] Thus, one could only say that the value of 12 hours of labour, for example, corresponds to the value of 12 hours of labour. Marx exposed the false pretence. The worker could not sell his labour to the capitalist, since it would have to exist before the sale. If the wage were the value of the labour performed and if the worker did not receive the entire new value, then the laws of commodity exchange would be violated. If the wage were the value of the labour performed and the worker received the whole new value, then the capitalist would not be able to receive surplus value; consequently, a foundation of the capitalist mode of production would be undermined.
Marx explained the mystification by pointing to several factors. One factor, he said, was that the worker always had to work the whole contracted working day in order to be paid. The capitalist, on the other hand, explains his profit by buying below value or selling above value. Imaginary expressions in which the existing state of affairs is misrepresented thus arise from the relations of production themselves.
Equally mystifying is the fact that the worker changes from one capitalist to another and that he concludes contracts. This leads to the false appearance that the worker is free.
Surplus labour and labour theory of value
Exploiters appropriate another's surplus labour, which is the amount of labour exceeding what is necessary for the reproduction of a worker's labour power and basic living conditions. In other terms, this entails the worker being able to maintain living conditions sufficient to be able to continue work. Marx does not attempt to tie this solely to capitalist institutions as he notes how historically, there are accounts of this appropriation of surplus labour in institutions with forced labour, like those based on slavery and feudal societies. However, the difference he emphasizes is the fact that when this appropriation of surplus labour occurs in societies like capitalist ones, it is occurring in institutions having abolished forced labour and resting on free labour.[1] This comes from Marx's labour theory of value which states that the exchange-value of a commodity is proportional to the socially necessary amount of labour time to produce the commodity.
In a capitalist economy, workers are paid according to this value and value is the source of all wealth. Value is determined by a good's particular utility for an actor and if the good results from human activity, it must be understood as a product of concrete labour, qualitatively defined labour. Capitalists are able to purchase labour power from the workers, who can only bring their own labour power in the market. Once capitalists are able to pay the worker less than the value produced by their labour, surplus labour forms and this results in the capitalists' profits. This is what Marx meant by "surplus value", which he saw as "an exact expression for the degree of exploitation of labor-power by capital, or of the laborer by the capitalist".[40] This profit is used to pay for overhead and personal consumption by the capitalist, but was most importantly used to accelerate growth and thus promote a greater system of exploitation.[1]
The degree of exploitation of labour power is dictated by the rate of surplus value as the proportion between surplus value/product and necessary value/product. The surplus value/product is the materialized surplus labour or surplus labour time while the necessary value/product is materialized necessary labour in regard to workers, like the reproduction of the labour power.[5] Marx called the rate of surplus value an "exact expression of the degree of exploitation of labour power by capital".[41] These theories ultimately demonstrate Marx's main issue with capitalism: it was not that capitalism is an institution where the labour exchange is coercive, but that in this institution one class still becomes significantly more rich while the other becomes impoverished.
Critique and rejection
Many capitalist critics have pointed out that Marx assumes that capital owners contribute nothing to the process of production. They suggest that Marx should have allowed for two things; namely, permit a fair profit on the risk of capital investment and allow for the efforts of management be paid their due.
David Ramsay Steele argues that marginal productivity theory renders Marx's theory of exploitation untenable. According to this theoretical framework and assuming competitive market conditions, a worker's compensation is determined by his or her contribution to marginal output. Similarly, owners of machines and real estate are compensated according to the marginal productivity of their capital's contribution to marginal output. However, Steele notes that this does not in any way touch the ethical argument of socialists who acknowledge non-labour contributions to marginal output, but contend that it is illegitimate for a class of passive owners to receive an unearned income from ownership of capital and land.[42]
Meghnad Desai, Baron Desai observed that there is also the prospect of surplus value arising from sources other than labour and a classic given example is winemaking. When grapes are harvested and crushed, labour is used. However, when yeast is added and the grape juice is left to ferment in order to get wine, the value of wine exceeds that of the grapes significantly, yet labour contributes nothing to the extra value. Marx had ignored capital inputs due to placing them all together in constant capital—translating the wear and tear of capital in production in terms of its labour value. Yet examples such as this demonstrated that value and surplus value could come from somewhere other than labour.[43]
The theory has been opposed by Eugen Böhm von Bawerk, among others. In History and Critique of Interest Theories (1884), he argues that capitalists do not exploit their workers, as they actually help employees by providing them with an income well in advance of the revenue from the goods they produced, stating: "Labor cannot increase its share at the expense of capital". In particular, he argues that the theory of exploitation ignores the dimension of time in production. From this criticism, it follows that, according to Böhm-Bawerk, the whole value of a product is not produced by the worker, but that labour can only be paid at the present value of any foreseeable output.[44]
John Roemer studied and criticized Marx's theory by putting forth a model to deal with exploitation in all modes of production, hoping to lay the foundations for an analysis of the laws of motion of socialism. In his works published in the 1980s, Roemer posits a model of exploitation based upon unequal ownership of human (physical labour skills) and non-human property (land and means of production). He states that this model of property rights has great superiority over the conventional surplus labour model of exploitation, therefore rejecting the labour theory of value.[6] In his attempt to put forward a theory of exploitation that also includes feudal, capitalist and socialist modes of production, he defines exploitation in each of the modes in terms of property rights. Roemer rejects the labour theory of value because he sees that exploitation can exist in the absence of employment relations, like in a subsistence economy, therefore backing the model of exploitation that is based on property rights. He tests his theory of exploitation using game theory to construct contingently feasible alternative states where the exploited agents could improve their welfare by withdrawing with their share of society's alienable and inalienable assets.[6] Feudal, capitalist and socialist exploitation all come from the theory of exploitation on the basis of inequitable distribution of property rights. There has been a range of agreement and disagreement from various economists, neo-classical economists favoring the model the most.
Some theorists criticize Roemer for his entire rejection of the labour theory of value and the surplus labour approach to exploitation, for they were the central aspects of Marxist thought in regard to exploitation.[45] Others criticize his commitment to a specifically liberal as opposed to a Marxist account of the wrongs of exploitation.[46]
Other theories
Liberal theory
Part of a series on |
Liberalism |
---|
Many assume that liberalism intrinsically lacks any adequate theory of exploitation because its phenomenon commits itself only to the primacy of personal rights and liberties and to individual choice as the basic explanatory datum. Hillel Steiner provided an argument to refute the claim that liberalism cannot supply an adequate theory of exploitation.[47] He discusses interpersonal transfers and how there are three types: donation, exchange and theft. Exchange is the only of the three that consists of a voluntary bilateral transfer, where the beneficiary receives something at a value greater than zero on the shared scale of value, although at times there can be ambiguity between more complex types of transfer. He describes the three dimensions of transfers as either unilateral/bilateral, voluntary/involuntary and equal/unequal. Despite these types of transfers being able to distinguish the differences in the four types of transfers, it is not enough to provide a differentiating characterization of exploitation. Unlike theft, an exploitative transfer is bilateral and the items are transferred voluntarily at both unequal and greater-than-zero value. The difference between a benefit and exploitation despite their various shared features is a difference between their counterfactual presuppositions, meaning that in an exploitation there is a voluntary bilateral transfer of unequally valued items because the possessors of both items would voluntarily make the transfer if the items to be transferred were of equal value, but in a benefit the possessor of the higher-value item would not voluntarily make the transfer if the items were at equal value. Put simply, the exploitation can be converted to an exchange: both exploiters and exploited would voluntarily become exchangers when benefactors would not.
In an exploitation both transfers are voluntary, but part of one of the two transfers is unnecessary. The circumstances that bring out exploitation are not the same as what brings about exploitative transfers. Exploitative circumstance is due to the factors other than what motivates individuals to engage in nonaltruistic bilateral transfers (exchanges and exploitations) as they are not sufficient circumstances to bring about exploitative transfers.
To further explain the occurrence of exploitative circumstances certain generalizations about social relations must be included to supply generalizations about social institutions. He says that 'if (i) certain things are true of the institutions within which interpersonal transfers occur and (ii) at least some of these transfers are nonaltruistic bilateral ones, then at least some of these transfers are exploitative.[48] Steiner looks at the institutional conditions of exploitation and finds that in general exploitation is considered unjust and to understand why it is necessary to look at the concept of a right, an inviolable domain of practical choice and the way rights are established to form social institutions. Institutional exploitation can be illustrated by schematized forms of exploitation to reach two points:
- Despite the mode of deprivation in exploitation, it is not the same as the mode involved in a violation of rights and it does result from such violations and the two deprivations may be of the same value.
- Rights violation (theft) is a bilateral relation, but exploitation is trilateral one. There are at least three persons needed for exploitation.
On a liberal view, exploitation can be described as a quadrilateral relation between four relevantly distinct parties: the state, the exploited, the exploiter and those who suffer rights violations. However, it can be argued that the state's interests with the exploiters action can be viewed as unimpeachable because you cannot imply that the exploiter would ever withhold consent from exploiting due to altruistic concerns. So this trilateral conception of exploitation identifies exploited, exploiters and sufferers of rights violations.
In terms of ridding exploitation, the standard liberal view holds that a regime of laissez-faire is a necessary condition. Natural rights thinkers Henry George and Herbert Spencer reject this view and claim that property rights belong to everyone, i.e. that all land to be valid must belong to everyone. Their argument aims to show that traditional liberalism is mistaken in holding that nonintervention in commerce is the key to non exploitation and they argue it is necessary, but not sufficient.
The classical liberal Adam Smith described the exploitation of labour by businessmen, who work together to extract as much wealth as possible out of their workers, thusly:
What are the common wages of labour, depends everywhere upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible. The former are disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of labour.[49]
Neoclassical notions
The majority of neoclassical economists only would view exploitation existing as an abstract deduction of the classic school and of Ricardo's theory of surplus-value.[5] However, in some neoclassical economic theories exploitation is defined by the unequal marginal productivity of workers and wages, such that wages are lower. Exploitation is sometimes viewed to occur when a necessary agent of production receives less wages than its marginal product.[50] Neoclassical theorists also identify the need for some type of redistribution of income to the poor, disabled, to the farmers and peasants, or whatever socially alienated group from the social welfare function. However, it is not true that neoclassical economists would accept the marginal productivity theory of just income as a general principle like other theorists do when addressing exploitation. The general neoclassical view sees that all factors can be simultaneously rewarded according to their marginal productivity: this means that factors of production should be awarded according to their marginal productivity as well, Euler's theorem for homogeneous function of the first order proves this:
- f(K,L)= fK(K,L)K+fL(K,L)L
The production function where K is capital and L is labour. Neoclassical theory requires that f be continuously differentiable in both variables and that there are constant returns to scale. If there are constant returns to scale, there will be perfect equilibrium if both capital and labour are rewarded according to their marginal products, exactly exhausting the total product.
The primary concept is that there is exploitation towards a factor of production, if it receives less than its marginal product. Exploitation can only occur in imperfect capitalism due to imperfect competition, with the neoclassical notion of productivity wages there is little to no exploitation in the economy.[51] This blames monopoly in the product market, monopsony in the labour market and cartellization as the main causes for exploitation of workers.
In developing nations
Developing nations, commonly called Third World countries, are the focus of much debate over the issue of exploitation, particularly in the context of the global economy.
Critics[who?] of foreign companies allege that firms such as Nike and Gap Inc. resort to child labour and sweatshops in developing nations[citation needed], paying their workers wages far lower than those that prevail in developed nations (where the products are sold). It is argued that this is insufficient to allow workers to attain the local subsistence standard of living if working hours common in the First World are observed, so that working hours much longer than in the first world are necessary.[citation needed] It is also argued that work conditions in these developing world factories are more unsafe and much more unhealthy than in the First World.[citation needed] For example, observers point to cases where employees were unable to escape factories burning down—and thus dying—because of locked doors, a common signal that sweatshop conditions exist, similar to the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire of 1911.
Others argue that in the absence of compulsion the only way that corporations are able to secure adequate supplies of labour is to offer wages and benefits superior to preexisting options and that the presence of workers in corporate factories indicates that the factories present options which are seen as better—by the workers themselves—than the other options available to them (see principle of revealed preference).
A common response is that this is disingenuous as the companies are in fact exploiting people by the terms of unequal human standards (applying lower standards to their Third World workers than to their First World ones). [citation needed] Furthermore, the argument goes that if people choose to work for low wages and in unsafe conditions because it is their only alternative to starvation or scavenging from garbage dumps (the "preexisting options"), this cannot be seen as any kind of "free choice" on their part. It also argued that if a company intends to sell its products in the First World, it should pay its workers by First World standards.[by whom?]
Following such a view, some[who?] in the United States propose that the American government should mandate that businesses in foreign countries adhere to the same labour, environmental, health and safety standards as the United States before they are allowed to trade with businesses in the United States (this has been advocated by Howard Dean, for example). They believe that such standards would improve the quality of life in less developed nations.[citation needed]
According to others, this would harm the economies of less developed nations by discouraging the United States from investing in them. Milton Friedman was an economist who thought that such a policy would have that effect.[52] According to this argument, the result of ending perceived exploitation would therefore be the corporation pulling back to its developed nation, leaving their former workers out of a job.
Groups who see themselves as fighting against global exploitation also point to secondary effects such as the dumping of government-subsidized corn on developing world markets which forces subsistence farmers off of their lands, sending them into the cities or across borders in order to survive. More generally, some sort of international regulation of transnational corporations is called for, such as the enforcement of the International Labour Organization's labour standards.
The fair trade movement seeks to ensure a more equitable treatment of producers and workers, therefore minimizing exploitation of labour forces in developing countries. The exploitation of labour is not limited to the aforementioned large scale corporate outsourcing, but it can also be found within the inherent structure of local markets in developing countries like Kenya.[53]
Wage labour
Part of a series on |
Organized labour |
---|
Wage labour as institutionalized under today's market economic systems has been criticized,[54] especially by both mainstream socialists and anarcho-syndicalists,[55][56][57][58] utilising the pejorative term wage slavery.[59][60] They regard the trade of labour as a commodity as a form of economic exploitation rooting partially from capitalism.
As per Noam Chomsky, analysis of the psychological implications of wage slavery goes back to the Enlightenment era. In his 1791 book On the Limits of State Action, liberal thinker Wilhelm von Humboldt posited that "whatever does not spring from a man's free choice, or is only the result of instruction and guidance, does not enter into his very nature; he does not perform it with truly human energies, but merely with mechanical exactness" and so when the labourer works under external control "we may admire what he does, but we despise what he is".[61] Both the Milgram and Stanford experiments have been found useful in the psychological study of wage-based workplace relations.[62]
Additionally, Marxists posit that labour as commodity, which is how they regard wage labour,[63] provides an absolutely fundamental point of attack against capitalism.[note 1] "It can be persuasively argued", noted one concerned philosopher, "that the conception of the worker's labor as a commodity confirms Marx's stigmatisation of the wage system of private capitalism as 'wage-slavery;' that is, as an instrument of the capitalist's for reducing the worker's condition to that of a slave, if not below it".[64][note 2]
See also
Part of a series on |
Forced labour and Slavery |
---|
- Benjamin Tucker
- Capital, Volume I
- Child labour
- Child sexual exploitation
- Contemporary slavery
- Corporate abuse
- Cost the limit of price
- Criticism of capitalism
- Cruelty to animals
- Debt bondage
- Exploitation of natural resources
- Forced prostitution
- Free trade
- Globalization
- Gulag
- Human trafficking
- Indentured servant
- International child abduction
- Labour, class struggle and false consciousness
- Laogai
- Mutualism
- Neocolonialism
- Overexploitation
- Property income
- Prosumerism
- Rate of exploitation
- Sharecropping
- Surplus value
- Sweatshop
- Trafficking of children
- Unearned income
- Unequal exchange
- Unfree labour
- Wage slavery
Notes
- ^ Another one being the capitalists' alleged theft from workers via surplus-value.
- ^ This Marxist objection is what motivated Nelson's essay, which claims that labour is not in fact a commodity.
References
- ^ a b c d Dowding, Keith (2011). "Exploitation". Encyclopedia of Power. SAGE Publications. pp. 232–235. ISBN 9781412927482.
- ^ Horace L. Fairlamb, 'Adam's Smith's Other Hand: A Capitalist Theory of Exploitation', Social Theory and Practice, 1996.
- ^ Friedrich Engels (1987), Institut für Marxismus-Leninismus beim ZK der SED (ed.), "Die Entwicklung des Sozialismus von der Utopie zur Wissenschaft", Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Werke (MEW), vol. 19 (9 ed.), Berlin: Dietz Verlag, p. 209,
Diese beiden großen Entdeckungen: die materialistische Geschichtsauffassung und die Enthüllung des Geheimnisses der kapitalistischen Produktion vermittelst des Mehrwerts verdanken wir Marx. Mit ihnen wurde der Sozialismus eine Wissenschaft […]
- ^ Andrew Reeve, Modern Theories of Exploitation"
- ^ a b c Jon Elster, "Exploring Exploitation", The Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 3-17
- ^ a b c d John E. Roemer, 'Should Marxists be Interested in Exploitation', Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1985, pg 30-65
- ^ John E. Roemer, "Origins of Exploitation and Class: Value Theory of Pre-Capitalist Economy", Econometrica, Vol. 50, No. 1, 1982, pp. 163-192
- ^ Jon Elster, "Exploring Exploitation", The Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 3-17
- ^ Michael Heinrich (2018), Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Eine Einführung. (14 ed.), Stuttgart: Schmetterling Verlag, p. 94
- ^ Karl Marx (1962), Institut für Marxismus-Leninismus beim ZK der SED (ed.), "Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Erster Band. Buch I: Der Produktionsprozeß des Kapitals.", Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Werke (MEW), vol. 23, Berlin: Dietz Verlag, p. 16,
Zur Vermeidung möglicher Mißverständnisse ein Wort. Die Gestalten von Kapitalist und Grundeigentümer zeichne ich keinesfalls in rosigem Licht. Aber es handelt sich hier um die Personen nur, soweit sie Personifikation ökonomischer Kategorien sind, Träger von bestimmten Klassenverhältnissen und Interessen. Weniger als jeder andere kann mein Standpunkt, der die Entwicklung der ökonomischen Gesellschaftsformation als einen naturgeschichtlichen Prozeß auffasst, den einzelnen verantwortlich machen für Verhältnisse, deren Geschöpf er sozial bleibt, sosehr er sich auch subjektiv über sie erheben mag.
- ^ Karl Marx (1962), Institut für Marxismus-Leninismus beim ZK der SED (ed.), "Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Erster Band. Buch I: Der Produktionsprozeß des Kapitals.", Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Werke (MEW), vol. 23, Berlin: Dietz Verlag, p. 286,
Im großen und ganzen hängt dies [die Tatsache, dass die Kapitalverwertung die Arbeitskraftträger physisch stark verschleißt, d. V.] aber auch nicht vom guten oder bösen Willen des einzelnen Kapitalisten ab. Die freie Konkurrenz macht die immanenten Gesetze der kapitalistischen Produktion dem einzelnen Kapitalisten gegenüber als äußerliches Zwangsgesetz geltend.
- ^ Michael Heinrich (2009), Devi Dumbadze/Johannes Geffers/Jan Haut u. a. (ed.), "Kritik bei Marx", Erkenntnis und Kritik. Zeitgenössische Positionen, Bielefeld: transcript Verlag, p. 46,
Allerdings muss man sich hier [= im Falle von Marx' Gesellschaftskritik, d. V.] vor zwei häufigen Missverständnissen hüten. Es geht Marx weder darum, die Wahrheit von Freiheit, Gleichheit und Eigentum gegen ihre bürgerliche Verzerrung einzuklagen. Im Gegenteil, dieser Kritikmodus, der Versuch, die bürgerlichen Ideale gegen die schlechte bürgerliche Wirklichkeit auszuspielen, der wird von Marx ebenfalls kritisiert. Es geht Marx aber auch nicht um eine Kritik am Kapitalismus von irgendeinem moralischen Standpunkt aus. Wann immer er im Kapital auf eine solche moralische Kritik zu sprechen kommt, macht er sich darüber lustig.
- ^ Michael Heinrich (2018), Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Eine Einführung. (14 ed.), Stuttgart: Schmetterling Verlag, p. 94
- ^ Karl Marx (1987), Institut für Marxismus-Leninismus beim ZK der SED (ed.), "Kritik des Gothaer Programms", Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Werke (MEW), vol. 19 (9 ed.), Berlin: Dietz Verlag, p. 18,
Was ist "gerechte" Verteilung? Behaupten die Bourgeois nicht, daß die heutige Verteilung "gerecht" ist? Und ist sie in der Tat nicht die einzige "gerechte" Verteilung auf Grundlage der heutigen Produktionsweise? Werden die ökonomischen Verhältnisse durch Rechtsbegriffe geregelt, oder entspringen nicht umgekehrt die Rechtsverhältnisse den ökonomischen? Haben nicht auch die sozialistischen Sektierer die verschiedenen Vorstellungen über "gerechte" Verteilung?
- ^ Karl Marx (1987), Institut für Marxismus-Leninismus beim ZK der SED (ed.), "Kritik des Gothaer Programms", Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Werke (MEW), vol. 19 (9 ed.), Berlin: Dietz Verlag, pp. 18–19,
Nehmen wir zunächst das Wort "Arbeitsertrag" im Sinne des Produkts der Arbeit, so ist der genossenschaftliche Arbeitsertrag das gesellschaftliche Gesamtprodukt. Davon ist nun abzuziehen: Erstens: Deckung zum Ersatz der verbrauchten Produktionsmittel. Zweitens: zusätzlicher Teil für Ausdehnung der Produktion. Drittens: Reserve- oder Assekuranzfonds gegen Mißfälle, Störungen durch Naturereignisse etc. Diese Abzüge vom "unverkürzten Arbeitsertrag" sind eine ökonomische Notwendigkeit, und ihre Größe ist zu bestimmen nach vorhandenen Mitteln und Kräften [...], aber sie sind in keiner Weise aus der Gerechtigkeit kalkulierbar.
- ^ Karl Marx (1962), Institut für Marxismus-Leninismus beim ZK der SED (ed.), "Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Erster Band. Buch I: Der Produktionsprozeß des Kapitals.", Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Werke (MEW), vol. 23, Berlin: Dietz Verlag, p. 646,
Von ihrem [= der Arbeiter, d. V.] eignen anschwellenden und schwellend in Zusatzkapital verwandelten Mehrprodukt strömt ihnen ein größerer Teil in der Form von Zahlungsmitteln zurück, so daß sie den Kreis ihrer Genüsse erweitern, ihren Konsumtionsfonds von Kleidern, Möbeln usw. besser ausstatten und kleine Reservefonds von Geld bilden können. So wenig aber bessere Kleidung, Nahrung, Behandlung und ein größeres Peculium das Abhängigkeitsverhältnis und die Exploitation des Sklaven aufheben, so wenig die des Lohnarbeiters. Steigender Preis der Arbeit infolge der Akkumulation des Kapitals besagt in der Tat nur, daß der Umfang und die Wucht der goldnen Kette, die der Lohnarbeiter sich selbst bereits geschmiedet hat, ihre losere Spannung erlauben.
- ^ Marx: Das Kapital, MEW 23: 534. „Braucht der Arbeiter alle seine Zeit, um die zur Erhaltung seiner selbst und seiner Race nötigen Lebensmittel zu produzieren, so bleibt ihm keine Zeit, um unentgeltlich für dritte Personen zu arbeiten. Ohne einen gewissen Produktivitätsgrad der Arbeit keine solche disponible Zeit für den Arbeiter, ohne solche überschüssige Zeit keine Mehrarbeit und daher keine Kapitalisten, aber auch keine Sklavenhalter, keine Feudalbarone, in einem Wort keine Großbesitzerklasse.“
- ^ Marx: Das Kapital, MEW 23: 231. "Nur die Form, worin diese Mehrarbeit dem unmittelbaren Produzenten, dem Arbeiter, abgepreßt wird, unterscheidet die ökonomischen Gesellschaftsformationen, beispielsweise die Gesellschaft der Sklaverei von der der Lohnarbeit."
- ^ Engels: Der Ursprung der Familie, des Privateigentums und des Staats, MEW 21: 170. „Die Sklaverei ist die erste, der antiken Welt eigentümliche Form der Ausbeutung: ihr folgt die Leibeigenschaft im Mittelalter, die Lohnarbeit in der neueren Zeit. Es sind dies die drei großen Formen der Knechtschaft, wie sie für die drei großen Epochen der Zivilisation charakteristisch sind; offne, und neuerdings verkleidete, Sklaverei geht stets danebenher.“
- ^ Friedrich Engels (1962), Institut für Marxismus-Leninismus beim ZK der SED (ed.), "Die Arbeiterbewegung in Amerika. Vorwort zur amerikanischen Ausgabe der "Lage der arbeitenden Klasse in England"", Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Werke (MEW), vol. 21, Berlin: Dietz Verlag, p. 339,
Im Mittelalter war keineswegs die Enteignung der Volksmassen vom Boden, sondern vielmehr ihre Aneignung an den Boden die Grundlage des feudalen Drucks. Der Bauer behielt seine Heimstätte, wurde aber als Leibeigner oder Höriger an sie gefesselt und hatte dem Grundherrn Tribut in Arbeit oder in Produkten zu leisten.
- ^ Marx: Das Kapital, MEW 23: 742
- ^ Michael Heinrich (2018), Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Eine Einführung (14 ed.), Stuttgart: Schmetterling Verlag, pp. 209–210
- ^ Marx: Das Kapital, MEW 23: 742
- ^ Michael Heinrich (2018), Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Eine Einführung (14 ed.), Stuttgart: Schmetterling Verlag, p. 89
- ^ Michael Heinrich (2018), Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Eine Einführung. (14 ed.), Stuttgart: Schmetterling Verlag, p. 87
- ^ Marx: Das Kapital, MEW 23: 181
- ^ Marx: Lohn, Preis, Profit. MEW 16: 133.
- ^ Karl Marx (1962), Institut für Marxismus-Leninismus beim ZK der SED. (ed.), "Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Erster Band. Buch I: Der Produktionsprozeß des Kapitals.", Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Werke (MEW), vol. 23, Berlin: Dietz Verlag, p. 185,
Die zur Produktion der Arbeitskraft notwendige Arbeitszeit löst sich also auf in die zur Produktion dieser Lebensmittel notwendige Arbeitszeit, oder der Wert der Arbeitskraft ist der Wert der zur Erhaltung ihres Besitzers notwendigen Lebensmittel.
- ^ Karl Marx (1962), Institut für Marxismus-Leninismus beim ZK der SED (ed.), "Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Erster Band. Buch I: Der Produktionsprozeß des Kapitals.", Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Werke (MEW), vol. 23, Berlin: Dietz Verlag, p. 185,
Die natürlichen Bedürfnisse selbst, wie Nahrung, Kleidung, Heizung, Wohnung usw., sind verschieden je nach den klimatischen und andren natürlichen Eigentümlichkeiten eines Landes. Andrerseits ist der Umfang sog. notwendiger Bedürfnisse, wie die Art ihrer Befriedigung, selbst ein historisches Produkt und hängt daher großenteils von der Kulturstufe eines Landes, unter andrem auch wesentlich davon ab, unter welchen Bedingungen, und daher mit welchen Gewohnheiten und Lebensansprüchen die Klasse der freien Arbeiter sich gebildet hat. Im Gegensatz zu den andren Waren enthält also die Wertbestimmung der Arbeitskraft ein historisches und moralisches Element. Für ein bestimmtes Land, zu einer bestimmten Periode jedoch, ist der Durchschnitts-Umkreis der notwendigen Lebensmittel gegeben.
- ^ Michael Heinrich (2018), Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Eine Einführung. (14 ed.), Stuttgart: Schmetterling Verlag, pp. 98–100
- ^ Michael Heinrich (2018), Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Eine Einführung (14 ed.), Stuttgart: Schmetterling Verlag, pp. 134–135
- ^ Michael Heinrich (2018), Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Eine Einführung (14 ed.), Stuttgart: Schmetterling Verlag, pp. 120–122
- ^ Michael Heinrich (2018), Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Eine Einführung (14 ed.), Stuttgart: Schmetterling Verlag, p. 133
- ^ Karl Marx (1962), Institut für Marxismus-Leninismus beim ZK der SED (ed.), "Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Erster Band. Buch I: Der Produktionsprozeß des Kapitals", Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Werke (MEW), vol. 23, Berlin: Dietz Verlag, p. 166,
Die Wiederholung oder Erneuerung des Verkaufs, um zu kaufen, findet, wie dieser Prozeß selbst, Maß und Ziel an einem außer ihm liegenden Endzwecke, der Konsumtion, der Befriedigung bestimmter Bedürfnisse. Im Kauf für den Verkauf dagegen sind Anfang und Ende dasselbe, Geld, Tauschwert, und schon dadurch ist die Bewegung endlos.
- ^ Karl Marx (1962), Institut für Marxismus-Leninismus beim ZK der SED (ed.), "Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Erster Band. Buch I: Der Produktionsprozeß des Kapitals", Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Werke (MEW), vol. 23, Berlin: Dietz Verlag, pp. 167–168,
Als bewußter Träger dieser Bewegung wird der Geldbesitzer Kapitalist. Seine Person, oder vielmehr seine Tasche, ist der Ausgangspunkt und der Rückkehrpunkt des Geldes. Der objektive Inhalt jener Zirkulation – die Verwertung des Werts – ist sein subjektiver Zweck, und nur soweit wachsende Aneignung des abstrakten Reichtums das allein treibende Motiv seiner Operationen, funktioniert er als Kapitalist oder personifiziertes, mit Willen und Bewußtsein begabtes Kapital.
- ^ Michael Heinrich (2018), Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Eine Einführung (14 ed.), Stuttgart: Schmetterling Verlag, p. 85
- ^ Michael Heinrich (2018), Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Eine Einführung. (14 ed.), Stuttgart: Schmetterling Verlag, pp. 94–96
- ^ Marx: Das Kapital, MEW 23: 562. "Die Form des Arbeitslohns löscht [...] jede Spur der Teilung des Arbeitstags in notwendige Arbeit und Mehrarbeit, in bezahlte und unbezahlte Arbeit aus. Alle Arbeit erscheint als bezahlte Arbeit."
- ^ Michael Heinrich (2018), Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Eine Einführung (14 ed.), Stuttgart: Schmetterling Verlag, pp. 94–95
- ^ Marx, Karl. [1867] 1967. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, vol. 1. New York: International Publishers.
- ^ Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. 1, as translated in J. Furner, Marx on Capitalism: The Interaction-Recognition-Antinomy Thesis, Brill 2018, p. 233, ISBN 978-90-04-32331-5, which also explains the significance of the difference between this translation of Marx's phrase, and the translation reproduced earlier in this Wikipedia entry, which, Furner argues, is wrong.
- ^ Steele, David Ramsay (September 1999). From Marx to Mises: Post Capitalist Society and the Challenge of Economic Calculation. Open Court. p. 143. ISBN 978-0875484495.
One of the fateful consequences of marginal productivity is that it sweeps away such theories as Marx's which see interest as 'unpaid labour'. Under competitive market conditions, a worker tends to be paid what his labour contributes to output, no more and no less. The same goes for an owner of a machine or piece of real estate. The analysis demonstrates the symmetry of all types of inputs: there is as much sense as saying that labour exploits capital, or that electricity exploits roofing tiles. Of course, this does not touch the ethical arguments of socialists who acknowledge that non-labour factors make a determinate contribution to output, analytically separable from labour's contribution, yet still contend that it is illegitimate for anyone to own capital or land and reap the payment for their services. But that is not the position of Marx, nor many other socialists.
- ^ Desai, Meghnad, Marx's Revenge: The Resurgence of Capitalism and the Death of Statist Socialism, 2002, Verso Books, page 264
- ^ "Böhm-Bawerk's Critique of the Exploitation Theory of Interest | Mises Daily". Mises.org. 2004-11-26. Retrieved 2015-10-20.
- ^ Khalid Nadvi, 'Exploitation and Labour Theory Of Value: A Critique of Roemer's Theory of Exploitation and Class', Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 20, No. 25, 1985, 1479-1494
- ^ For example, Allen W. Wood, Karl Marx (Routledge 2004) and Nicolas Vrousalis, 'Exploitation, Vulnerability and Social Domination', Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 41, 2013, 131-157
- ^ Hillel Steiner, 'A Liberal Theory of Exploitation', Ethics, Vol. 94, No. 2, 1984, pp. 225-241
- ^ Hillel Steiner, 'A Liberal Theory of Exploitation', Ethics, Vol. 94, No. 2, 1984, pp. 229
- ^ Adam Smith. The Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapter 8. Marxists Internet Archive.
- ^ J. Schumpter, The theory of economic development, Harvard University Press, 1949
- ^ Milan Zafirovski, 'Measuring and Making Sense of Labor Exploitation in Contemporary Society: A Comparative Analysis', Review of Radical Political Economies, 2003, Vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 462-484
- ^ Hawkins, John (2015-03-25). "An Interview With Milton Friedman | John Hawkins' Right Wing News". Rightwingnews.com. Retrieved 2015-10-20.
- ^ Martinus van Tilborgh. "How do we find our artists". Villagemarkets.org. Retrieved 2015-10-20.
- ^ Ellerman 1992 .
- ^ Thompson 1966, p. 599 .
- ^ Thompson 1966, p. 912 .
- ^ Ostergaard 1997, p. 133 .
- ^ Lazonick 1990, p. 37 .
- ^ "Wage Slave". Merriam Webster. Retrieved 4 March 2013.
- ^ "wage slave". Dictionary.com. Retrieved 4 March 2013.
- ^ Chomsky 1993, p. 19
- ^ Thye & Lawler 2006 .
- ^ Marx 1990, p. 1006 : "[L]abour-power, a commodity sold by the worker himself."
- ^ Nelson 1995, p. 158