Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:34:53.262Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exploitation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Nancy Holmstrom
Nancy Holmstrom*
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

According to Marx one of the primary evils of capitalism (and any other class society) is that it is exploitative-and necessarily so. Socialist and communist societies will (necessarily) not be exploitative and this is one of the reasons why they will in some sense be better. To understand such claims we have to determine exactly what Marx means by “exploitation” and what it is about exploitation that Marx finds to be bad. Neither of these questions is as simple as it might seem.

A common misunderstanding of Marx is this: exploitation consists simply in an unequal distribution of social wealth. Workers are exploited because they get so much less of the pie than do capitalists. Another interpretation of Marx's concept is that exploitation consists in the fact that workers to not get the whole pie. They produce all value and, therefore, deserve to get it all back. I will show that both of these interpretations are inadequate or simply mistaken. An error common to both is an overemphasis on distribution.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , June 1977 , pp. 353 - 369
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

* Bernard Gendron was extremely helpful to me in writing this paper. I also profited from discussions with Gary Young who argues for a stronger position against Wood than I do in his paper “Marx and the Injustice of Capitalist Production” (unpublished). The account of exploitation I develop here is similar to accounts given by Lawrence Crocker in “Marx's Concept of Exploitation” in Social Theory and Practice, (Fall1972), and Wood, Allen in “The Marxian Critique of Justice”, in Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1, (1972),Google Scholar but there are important differences as well, some of which will emerge in the paper. A preliminary version of this paper was given at a meeting of the Marxist Activist Philosophers in October 1975.

1 Op. cit.

2 These will vary according to physical conditions, such as climate, and also according to social and historical conditions. There is also, Marx says, a conventional element.

3 Capital, lll., New York, International Publishers, Inc., 1967, p. 820.

4 Cf. e.g., Grundrisse, Penguin, p. 611.

5 Ibid., p. 820.

6 Ibid., p. 820. Cf. Grundrisse, p. 611.

7 I, am deliberately avoiding the question of Marx's position on the metaphysical question of freedom. The position I have ascribed to him is compatible with various positions on the question.

8 Capital, l., New York, International Publishers, Inc. p. 218.

9 “Socially necessary” labor means the labor that is required to produce a product, given the specific conditions in which the labor takes place, i.e., given “the normal conditions of production, and … the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time.” Capital, l, p. 39.

10 Ibid., p. 169.

11 “It takes centuries ere the ‘free’ laborer, thanks to the development of capitalist production, agrees, i.e., is compelled by social conditions, to sell the whole of his active life, his very capacity to work, for the price of the necessities of life, his birthright for a mess of pottage.” Ibid., p. 271.

12 Capital III, p. 819. Also, “It will not be forgotten, that, with respect to the labor of children, even the formality of a voluntary sale disappears.” Capital, p. 578, fn.l.

13 Capital I, p. 714.

14 The rest of the surplus value goes to other capitalists in the form of rent and interest.

15 Capital, l, p. 217.

16 Ibid., p. 542.

17 Ibid .., pp. 539–40.

18 “ … It was in general incorrect to make a fuss about so-called distribution and put the principal stress on it. Any distribution whatever of the means of consumption is only a consequence of the distribution of the conditions of production themselves. The latter distribution, however, is a feature of the mode of production itself.”Critique of the, Gotha Program, in Selected Works, New York, International Publishers, 1974, p. 325.

19 See for example Tony Cliff, State Capitalism in Russia, London, Pluto Press.

20 I use the word “wealth” rather than “value” because the latter, which is equivalent to “exchange value,” is inappropriate to socialist and communist societies, being the specific form that wealth takes in capitalist societies. The necessity for this terminological precision was impressed upon me by David Smith.

21 Robert Nozick's interpretation of Marx's concept of exploitation is similar to this. Although he never states what he takes Marx's definition to be or cites any texts, he nevertheless states that “ … the charm of simplicity of this theory's definition, of exploitation is lost when it is realized that according to the definition there will be exploitation in any society in which investment takes place for a greater future produce … and in any society in which those unable to work, or to work productively, are subsidized, by the labor of others.” Anarchy, State and Utopia, New York, Basic Books, Inc., 1974, p. 253.

22 Op. cit., pp. 319, 322-5 in particular.

23 This point was suggested to me by Bernard Gendron.

24 Marx says, “Surplus labor … in essence always remains forced labor,” (Capital III, p. 819), and in numerous passages he refers to labor under capitalism as wage slavery and to workers under capitalism as wage slaves.

25 Op. cit., p. 278.

26 Op. cit.

27 Marx thought that the elimination of capitalism and its replacement by socialism was possible at the time he was writing. However, even if he had thought it impossible at that time he would not have taken this to destroy the basis of his condemnation. He would still have thought it an evil, the elimination of which would result in a higher form of society. He describes the social form that will follow capitalism as a “higher” form, e.g., in Capital, l, p. 592. Consider what he says about slavery: “The recognition, of the products as its own, and the judgment that its separation from the conditions of its realization is improper—forcibly imposed—is an enormous (advance in) awareness, itself the product of the mode of production resting on capital, and as much the knell to its doom as, with the slave's awareness, that he cannot be the property of another, with his consciousness of himself as a person, the existence of slavery becomes a merely artificial vegetative existence, and ceases to be able to prevail as the basis of production.” (My emphasis)

28 Capital Ill, p. 339.

29 Op., cit., p. 262.

30 Capital I, p. 194.

31 Op. cit., p. 271.

32 Allen, Derek “Is Marxism a Philosophy?” journal of Philosophy, 71 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33 Marlene Fried in “Marxism and Justice,” comment on Allen, at American Philosophical Association Eastern Division Meetings, December 1974.

34 Capital l, p. 271.

35 Capital, Ill, p. 819.

36 Capital, I, p. 586.

37 Capital, I, p. 582.

38 Capital Ill, p. 819.

39 Critique of the Gotha Program, op. cit., p. 324.

40 Op. cit., p. 268.

41 Much the same conclusion is argued for in McBride, William's very useful paper in Ethics, 85 (1975),CrossRefGoogle Scholar which I read after writing this paper.