From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Sat Jun 30 2007 - 01:49:20 EDT
>Hi Michael, > >Well... there's exploitation possible from the appropriation of >surplus labour, surplus product, or surplus value, or generic >profit. But surplus value or profit can be appropriated directly >from production, or in economic exchange (circulation). In addition, >other kinds of exploitation are possible in the circulation of >commodities, money and capital, and in human relations generally. >Exploitation is a big subject, and as I said being rather innocent I >don't even pretend to know all the different possible modalities of >exploitation. > >The production of a surplus product need not imply exploitation >necessarily. An independent producer can produce a surplus product, >without necessarily exploiting anybody. > >Marx argues the general social precondition for capitalist private >profits in bourgeois society is the existence and performance of >surplus-labour (Mehrarbeit), the product of which can be >appropriated in virtue of ownership title to capital assets. But >that is not to say that profits cannot also arise in numerous other >ways (I don't even pretend to know all of the different ways). > >The big problem with Marxism is, typically, that it tries to apply >abstract categories directly to empirical reality, without studying >the empirical data. The grandiose theoretical claims are many, the >research pitiful in comparison. In reality, there is no >neat-and-tidy accounting sum according to which total surplus value >equals total profits, since surplus values are generated without >translating into profits, and profits are realised without any >relation to new surplus values produced. Anybody who understands >anything about national accounts or economics knows this. And >therefore the "transformation problem" has always seemed a trifle >scholastic to me. > >Bourgeois economics extols the benefits of trade. Obviously, people >don't trade unless they gain something from it (unless they are >forced to trade, on unfavourable terms), but the gains might be very >unequally and unfairly distributed, and therefore you can be >exploited in trade. Labour-power can also sell above or below its >value. All Marx then says is, whether the worker's wage be high or >low, he's still exploited anyhow. Fine and good, but short of the >red revolution, the worker aims to get a wage that at least reflects >the value of his labour-power. > >To take a personal example: after a bout of depression, I took on a >job that 150 or so other workers wanted, and I accepted pay scale 6. >I wanted to work, rather than be on the dole, that's how I was >brought up. But in terms of the work I really end up doing, I should >be at least in pay scale 7, because that's the norm for that sort of >work. Marx can say: whether you are in pay scale 6 or 7, it's wage >slavery anyway, which is a valid point of view, but it is not a lot >of use to me, insofar as I, as a worker, think I ought at least to >be paid for the work I do. And there is an issue to resolve there. I >think my union would agree with me on that point, we'll see (the >fine points of the law are something else again). On what are you basing your guess of what Marx would say? I think it's obvious that you have Marx wrong. > >As regards workers exploiting workers, consider this "hypothetical >case": an immigrant worker without a residence permit and a work >permit, takes on work under a false name (a friend of his), and his >wage gets deposited in his friend's account. For this "service" his >friend (also a worker) keeps 40-60% of the earnings for himself, and >pays out 40-60% of the earnings to the immigrant. The immigrant has >no leg to stand on, since he's illegal as it is. His >employer accepts his work, and says he's doing a good job, his >"friend" takes part of the money, but basically he stays where he >is, because he hasn't got much in the way of other options, and >doesn't earn enough to get himself out of this trap. The bourgeois >press of course loves this kind of story, because it shows workers >exploiting workers. Real point is that you could be working like >this for years, and nobody gives a damn except about the money, and >you cannot even earn your work permit in this way. > >I have read plenty philosophical discourses about exploitation, but >the reality of it is something else again, and you have to keep your >wits about you, because you can get screwed in a jiffy. So exploitation is not a reality? Rakesh > >Jurriaan > >PS- I wrote a few wiki reference articles on the topic here: > ><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_value>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_value ><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_product>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_product ><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_labour>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_labour ><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_accumulation>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_accumulation ><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour > >You are of course welcome to improve them. > > > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 02 2007 - 00:00:03 EDT