If two parties each have something the other wants, and they agree to the transaction, where is the exploitation?
If a freed slave opts to stay working for their previous master because it’s all the slave knows, this is still exploitation.
This analogy extends to capitalism. If someone who only knows the exploitative relationships between worker and capitalist, and therefore opts to maintain the status quo, it does not change the reality that exploitation is inherent to the relationship.
If a freed slave opts to stay working for their previous master because it’s all the slave knows, this is still exploitation.
An interesting example which is in the modern era completely hypothetical. Given that the former slave is a victim of violence (enslavement), they don’t stop being that victim just because someone signed a piece of paper 1800 miles away. Calling that exploitation is rather asinine. Call it violence.
This analogy extends to capitalism. If someone who only knows the exploitative relationships between worker and capitalist,
I believe that at this point your definition for exploitation is circular, and pretty meaningless. It’s exploitation now because it’s always been exploitation before.
You’ve neither told us what exploitation is, or why it’s bad.
No, just no. It’s not hypothetical. It’s historical fact that these things happened. You don’t get to hand wave it away because you don’t like it.
Calling that exploitation is rather asinine. Call it violence.
What? It’s both. Slavery was an exploitative system with a higher level of violence than capitalism, but ultimately both rely on immense amounts of violence. After your boss doesn’t pay you your wage, try to get the money for it. Especially if you’re not in the imperial core (US, Europe, etc.) When you can’t, try stealing from his shop to make up the difference and see how the violence of the state immediately comes down hard on you and observe that the violence of the state never came to back you up when your employer stole wages from you.
I believe that at this point your definition for exploitation is circular, and pretty meaningless. It’s exploitation now because it’s always been exploitation before.
Read a book. You’re not educated on this subject, and you sound unintelligible. It is exploitative because the only generation of value comes from the working class. If you were to automate all jobs away such that no worker surplus value could be withdrawn from the system, you end up with a very clear and obvious formula.
The limit as x approaches infinity for the equation of surplus value, referring to the value available in the form of profit to the capitalist, where x is the level of automation is zero. If all the capitalists can produce products with a cost of zero after materials, then (assuming the beloved capitalist competition exists) there will be a race to the bottom on surplus value extraction that ends at roughly zero.
Not only is it “bad” which is a relatively meaningless term in the historical development of economic systems, it’s also inherently unsustainable.
The cyclical nature of the crises of capitalism are directly related to capitalism’s inherent contradictions. They are getting more volatile and more pronounced as the rate of profit continues to fall closer and closer to zero.
As capitalists cut cost by reducing labor hours and wages, fewer people can purchase their goods (on the whole, this does not apply to every industry at every time, but the vast majority of industries are affected in this way.) This cycle leads to mass unemployment every 7-10 years, more or less.
No, just no. It’s not hypothetical. It’s historical fact that these things happened.
In the deep past. Unless time travel has happened, all you’re doing is muttering about ancient history.
Your example offers no insight, when we’re talking about something that is a current problem or at least an alleged current problem.
What? It’s both. Slavery was
Which is my point. Supposing that “exploitation” is even a valid concept, then it must be the lesser of the two when compared with violence. So use the stronger argument and say “that was violence”. Not “that was exploitation”.
However, without a good explanation of what exploitation is separate and distinct from violence, it’s not even clear there is such a thing as exploitation.
Read a book. You’re not educated on this subject,
More so than you, apparently. Like, can you give me a book title, or an author? Without that, your jab’s just a schoolyard taunt.
I am educated. I am intelligent, and I’m pointing out that there isn’t some common sense or widely accepted definition of what exploitation is. Everyone talks about it (because it has emotional punch), but without anyone even hinting at what it is.
If it is exploitation any time two people of unequal wealth (or power, or whatever) trade, then this disallows all trade effectively, keeping the poor in poverty.
It is exploitative because the only generation of value comes from the working class.
Huh? What is value, other than some arbitrary number assigned to a good or a service, which explains how much demand there is for it? That is, by its nature, subjective. Changing.
What demand you have for something now might differ in a year. Or an hour. What you demand and what I demand are different, therefor values differ.
The universe and physics didn’t manifest with magical numbers assigned to the poor quality left shoes that the Soviet Shoe Factory produced.
Even if I accepted the marxist twaddle that “the only generation of value comes from the working class”, you’ve still failed to define exploitation in a meaningful way. If the workers generate this value (indeed, the only way that it can be generated!), then the transaction they have agreed to is to give away that value for other compensation. They have not been enslaved, they do not have a gun to their heads. No violence has occurred.
If they cannot do this, if some principle prevents them from doing it, if they are not allowed to exchange that for their compensation, then what? Are they to starve? Certainly they aren’t producing goods that they use themselves… were that true, they’d do so and have no need for trade/exchange. Yet clearly they fail to (refuse to?) do that. Trade will need to occur at some point.
If they then trade these things to the consumers of the goods, how are they not then exploiting those consumers? Clearly there is a power imbalance… the shoeless can’t shod themselves, and these workers hold those shoes hostage.
Trade is, by definition, mutual exchange. If one side gets goods and the other doesn’t, then it’s not trade at all, it’s just robbery. But those workers are compensated (they’re not slaves). Are the workers not exploiting the capitalist factory owners?
Thus, I conclude that “exploit” is just a word that people use to whine about their inability to negotiate satisfactory terms. The good news is tomorrow is another day, they can try again.
If a freed slave opts to stay working for their previous master because it’s all the slave knows, this is still exploitation.
This analogy extends to capitalism. If someone who only knows the exploitative relationships between worker and capitalist, and therefore opts to maintain the status quo, it does not change the reality that exploitation is inherent to the relationship.
An interesting example which is in the modern era completely hypothetical. Given that the former slave is a victim of violence (enslavement), they don’t stop being that victim just because someone signed a piece of paper 1800 miles away. Calling that exploitation is rather asinine. Call it violence.
I believe that at this point your definition for exploitation is circular, and pretty meaningless. It’s exploitation now because it’s always been exploitation before.
You’ve neither told us what exploitation is, or why it’s bad.
No, just no. It’s not hypothetical. It’s historical fact that these things happened. You don’t get to hand wave it away because you don’t like it.
What? It’s both. Slavery was an exploitative system with a higher level of violence than capitalism, but ultimately both rely on immense amounts of violence. After your boss doesn’t pay you your wage, try to get the money for it. Especially if you’re not in the imperial core (US, Europe, etc.) When you can’t, try stealing from his shop to make up the difference and see how the violence of the state immediately comes down hard on you and observe that the violence of the state never came to back you up when your employer stole wages from you.
Read a book. You’re not educated on this subject, and you sound unintelligible. It is exploitative because the only generation of value comes from the working class. If you were to automate all jobs away such that no worker surplus value could be withdrawn from the system, you end up with a very clear and obvious formula.
The limit as x approaches infinity for the equation of surplus value, referring to the value available in the form of profit to the capitalist, where x is the level of automation is zero. If all the capitalists can produce products with a cost of zero after materials, then (assuming the beloved capitalist competition exists) there will be a race to the bottom on surplus value extraction that ends at roughly zero.
Not only is it “bad” which is a relatively meaningless term in the historical development of economic systems, it’s also inherently unsustainable.
The cyclical nature of the crises of capitalism are directly related to capitalism’s inherent contradictions. They are getting more volatile and more pronounced as the rate of profit continues to fall closer and closer to zero.
As capitalists cut cost by reducing labor hours and wages, fewer people can purchase their goods (on the whole, this does not apply to every industry at every time, but the vast majority of industries are affected in this way.) This cycle leads to mass unemployment every 7-10 years, more or less.
In the deep past. Unless time travel has happened, all you’re doing is muttering about ancient history.
Your example offers no insight, when we’re talking about something that is a current problem or at least an alleged current problem.
Which is my point. Supposing that “exploitation” is even a valid concept, then it must be the lesser of the two when compared with violence. So use the stronger argument and say “that was violence”. Not “that was exploitation”.
However, without a good explanation of what exploitation is separate and distinct from violence, it’s not even clear there is such a thing as exploitation.
More so than you, apparently. Like, can you give me a book title, or an author? Without that, your jab’s just a schoolyard taunt.
I am educated. I am intelligent, and I’m pointing out that there isn’t some common sense or widely accepted definition of what exploitation is. Everyone talks about it (because it has emotional punch), but without anyone even hinting at what it is.
If it is exploitation any time two people of unequal wealth (or power, or whatever) trade, then this disallows all trade effectively, keeping the poor in poverty.
Huh? What is value, other than some arbitrary number assigned to a good or a service, which explains how much demand there is for it? That is, by its nature, subjective. Changing.
What demand you have for something now might differ in a year. Or an hour. What you demand and what I demand are different, therefor values differ.
The universe and physics didn’t manifest with magical numbers assigned to the poor quality left shoes that the Soviet Shoe Factory produced.
Even if I accepted the marxist twaddle that “the only generation of value comes from the working class”, you’ve still failed to define exploitation in a meaningful way. If the workers generate this value (indeed, the only way that it can be generated!), then the transaction they have agreed to is to give away that value for other compensation. They have not been enslaved, they do not have a gun to their heads. No violence has occurred.
If they cannot do this, if some principle prevents them from doing it, if they are not allowed to exchange that for their compensation, then what? Are they to starve? Certainly they aren’t producing goods that they use themselves… were that true, they’d do so and have no need for trade/exchange. Yet clearly they fail to (refuse to?) do that. Trade will need to occur at some point.
If they then trade these things to the consumers of the goods, how are they not then exploiting those consumers? Clearly there is a power imbalance… the shoeless can’t shod themselves, and these workers hold those shoes hostage.
Trade is, by definition, mutual exchange. If one side gets goods and the other doesn’t, then it’s not trade at all, it’s just robbery. But those workers are compensated (they’re not slaves). Are the workers not exploiting the capitalist factory owners?
Thus, I conclude that “exploit” is just a word that people use to whine about their inability to negotiate satisfactory terms. The good news is tomorrow is another day, they can try again.