Talk:Exploitation of labour

message: hello!
I did a big cleanup (or at least what I hope was a cleanup):
* I think there was no crisp distinction between the pro/anti-market sections, and the pro/anti-capitalist sections.  A lot of verbiage was redundant, appearing in both the pro sections, or both the anti sections.
* The "exploitation in developing nations" was sort of an odd-man out.  I moved it to a seperate article.
* The interleaved "he said / she said" interleaving of assertion and rebuttal is not good wikipedia form, and we were doing it here.  I've created one big area for the each family of theories (noted above), and in each of these two sections, put a single "Criticism of opposing theories".  My hope is that anything that actively explains the core of one theory will go in the theorie's main section (or new subsections, if that's useful) and anything that attacks the opposing theory, or rebutts criticisms of the opposing theory, can go in the "criticisms" section.
* I'm not sure I did the right thing with the micro/macro or organizational/structural bits.  I lumped them under "Marxist".  Is that right?  Certainly they should not be at a top level (as they don't exist under the pro-market theories).  So: perhaps under Marxism, perhaps elsewhere in anti-market, perhaps in a new article?
* On this talk page, I removed most of what was here: I think that most of the issues we were debating came to some resolution, and in those cases, I've tried to preserve the resolutions: e.g. I haven't touched anything in the anti-market areas.
* A suggestion: I'd like to have a certain level of detante:  let's allow each of the two major sections to speak for themselves.  A pro-market person should not edit the Marxist section to change "labor theory of value" to "the SO-CALLED labor theory of value", nor should an anti-market person edit the pro-market section from "under condition X exploitation can not exist" to "Z's assert that under condition X exploitation can not exist, despite fact R".
User:Tjic
----
Overall I think this page is pretty well-written, with this one exception from "Criticisms of opposing theories": "in their view, labor unions are either criminal or sponsored by the state"  Who asserts this?  I've never heard anyone make such a blanket statement.  If the meaning of this sentence is supposed to be "labor unions which exert coercive exploitative power are either criminal or sponsored...", then it makes sense, but as it reads, it looks like pro-market theorists are making a paranoiac allegation.
--JdwNYC 20:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: It is stated in the article: "[exploitation] is a kind of market failure, a deviation from an ideal vision of capitalism." This is, of course, a contradiction in terms. Exploitation is indeed a deviation from Capitalism, but it cannot be a market failure, of course. Market failure is claimed by anti-free-market advocates to be the natural result of free-rolling capitalism.
This is typical of the problematic conceptualisation of "exploitation" in this article: both neoclassical and neoliberal thories are used here as "carriers" of variations of the Marxists ideas, whereas in fact both claim that under free market conditions exploitation is not possible, and only exists as a result of governmental action to limit activities in the market. 192.115.133.141 12:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well written, but conceptually faulty 

message: Ok I've been drinking cocktails but I thought this "In brief, the profit gained by the capitalist is the difference between the value of the product made by the worker and the actual wage that the worker receives; in other words, capitalism functions on the basis of paying workers less than the full value product of their labor." was so insightful.  Thanks everyone for this informative article. special, random,Merkinsmum 01:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: wow

message: I know that many think today that the Soviet system was well-intended but am adding Economy of the Soviet Union. Obviously a business exists primarily to benefit its shareholders, not its workers. Businesses are up-front about that. Is it more or less dishonest to run a system that is theoretically in favour of the workers but in reality exploits them?86.42.213.48 (talk) 11:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Soviet Union

message: This is very bad and needs to be removed, if only because of no references.
In Marxian economics, exploitation refers to the subjection of producers (the proletariat) to work for passive owners (bourgeoisie) for less compensation than is equivalent to the actual amount of work done. The proletarian is forced to sell his or her labour power, rather than a set quantity of labour, in order to receive a wage in order to survive, while the capitalist exploits the work performed by the proletarian by accumulating the surplus value of their labour. Therefore, the capitalist makes his/her living by passively owning a means of production and generating a profit, when instead the labor should be entitled to all it produces.
Here is how exploitation is defined in Bottomore's Marxist Dictionary 2nd ed, 1991 p.176-177
Capitalism differs from NON-CAPITALIST MODES OF PRODUCTION in that exploitation
formally takes place without the direct intervention
of force or non-economic processes. The
surplus in the capitalist mode arises from
the specific character of its production process
and epecially, the manner in which it is linked to the process of EXCHANGE. Capitalist production
generates a surplus because capitalists buy
workers' labour-power at a wage equal to its
value but, being in control of production, extract
labour greater than the equivalent of that
wage. Marx differed from the classical political
economists, who saw exploitation as arising
from the unequal exchange of labour for the
wage. For Marx, the distinction between labour
and labour power allowed the latter to be sold at
its value while the former created the surplus.
Thus exploitation occurs in the capitalist mode
of production behind the backs of the participants,
hidden by the facade of free and equal
exchange (see COMMODITY FETISHISM).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 21:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: delete

message: The section on liberal exploitation is confusing in general. Is the idea that the exchangers have a shared scale of value and the things they exchange should be of equal value on this scale?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.171.156.208 (talk) 19:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  shared scale of value? 

message: I don't really think this section is up to par with Wikipedia's standards. Almost no sources and some politically charged statements that don't seem objective. Edited some of the most offensive ones but I think the section as a whole needs sources or it should be deleted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aa24577 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, added points where I believe citation is needed. Please reply to let me know what you think, and if anything can be improved upon. Regards. Obama gaming (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "In developing nations" section is almost completely devoid of sources 

message: Hello. I must say that I do not understand why someone claimed that Marx viewed exploitation as morally unjust. From reading the article, one could get the impression that Marx was one huge moralizer. He did not intend to moralize it. 
(1) In the preface of "Das Kapital" (volume 1, the first edition) he explicetly said he wanted to avoid certain misunderstandings. He did not depict capitalists and land owners in "a rosy light" but he did not intend to blame someone for something forced upon him by social circumstances. 
"To prevent possible misunderstanding, a word. I paint the capitalist and the landlord in no sense couleur de rose [i.e., seen through rose-tinted glasses]. But here individuals are dealt with only in so far as they are the personifications of economic categories, embodiments of particular class-relations and class-interests. My standpoint, from which the evolution of the economic formation of society is viewed as a process of natural history, can less than any other make the individual responsible for relations whose creature he socially remains, however much he may subjectively raise himself above them." 
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p1.htm 
Let me give you another example. Later in that book, when he writes about the English Factory Acts, he said that capitalists have to exploit workers in order to survive as capitalists in a world of competition. It was not their "good" or "ill" will.
"Hence Capital is reckless of the health or length of life of the labourer, unless under compulsion from society. To the out-cry as to the physical and mental degradation, the premature death, the torture of over-work, it answers: Ought these to trouble us since they increase our profits? But looking at things as a whole, all this does not, indeed, depend on the good or ill will of the individual capitalist. Free competition brings out the inherent laws of capitalist production, in the shape of external coercive laws having power over every individual capitalist."
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch10.htm#S5 
(2) In "Das Kapital" Marx did not try an idealistic critique. He did not take, for instance, the idea of justice comparing it to reality claiming that the latter was unjust. According to Marx, in capitalism it is not unjust that the labourer does not get the whole value produced by him. According to the laws of exchange, a worker usually gets paid the value of his labour force. That the capitalist uses this labour force in order to get a certain amount of surplus-value is of no concern to the labourer. He has got what he deserved. In a capitalist world, this is totally fine and just.
"The use-value of labour-power, or in other words, labour, belongs just as little to its seller, as the use-value of oil after it has been sold belongs to the dealer who has sold it. The owner of the money has paid the value of a day’s labour-power; his, therefore, is the use of it for a day; a day’s labour belongs to him. The circumstance, that on the one hand the daily sustenance of labour-power costs only half a day’s labour, while on the other hand the very same labour-power can work during a whole day, that consequently the value which its use during one day creates, is double what he pays for that use, this circumstance is, without doubt, a piece of good luck for the buyer, but by no means an injury to the seller. [...] Every condition of the problem is satisfied, while the laws that regulate the exchange of commodities, have been in no way violated. Equivalent has been exchanged for equivalent. For the capitalist as buyer paid for each commodity, for the cotton, the spindle and the labour-power, its full value. He then did what is done by every purchaser of commodities; he consumed their use-value."  
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch07.htm#S2
(3) In "Kritik des Gothaer Programms" mentioned in this Wikipedia article, Marx was criticizing the idea that the labourer should get directly the whole of his product and he especially criticized Ferdindan Lassalle for this. He refused the idea even in the case of a possible communist society, for, even then, the workers would have to put aside a part of their produce for, let us say, "social funds" for those who cannot work and for an admininstration and for schooling and so on. Again he was very critical of moral ideas. Certain deductions from the produce HAVE to be made, which was not a question of justice, like saving supplies for bad times and for expanding the means of production.
"What is "a fair distribution"?
Do not the bourgeois assert that the present-day distribution is "fair"? And is it not, in fact, the only "fair" distribution on the basis of the present-day mode of production? Are economic relations regulated by legal conceptions, or do not, on the contrary, legal relations arise out of economic ones? Have not also the socialist sectarians the most varied notions about "fair" distribution?"
and later on he wrote
"Let us take, first of all, the words "proceeds of labor" in the sense of the product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product. From this must now be deducted: First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc. These deductions from the "undiminished" proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity. There remains the other part of the total product, intended to serve as means of consumption. 
Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today."
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm
I hope that someone could pay attention to that and change the article accordingly. I would like to do it myself but I do not possess a great deal of English literature on Marx. Jörg Sophosat (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , just addressed your point --BunnyyHop (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marx a moralizer fighting the injustice of exploitation?  

message: , please use this category to further discuss this, as the other ones have become too cluttered and the topics are of no use. I'll summarise it for RFC colleagues:
> The translated text [from dewiki] had no attribution on a significant amount of phrases and stated opinions as fact. 
> As such, a dispute was opened but not handled correctly, hence the big walls of text.
> We are currently in a process of increasing the WP:NPOV of the article by «pointing things out and fixing». 
> Reverted once again due to the «inherent bias» of showing the «marxist POV». 
--BunnyyHop (talk) 02:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summarisation of both discussions 

message: This edit is one of the few correctly cited, generally neutral, non POV pushing information, it's very constructive and helps the article, although it could be improved:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Exploitation_of_labour&diff=996515956&oldid=996514733
Thanks for correctly attributing the source adding "claim" and using correct attribution of what Marx thought instead of stating Marx was correct. Good edit, if you can up this editing I think you could be a great editor. Des Vallee (talk) 08:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. --BunnyyHop (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks for this edit. 

message: I'm going to try to organize all comments about any ongoing revisions here. , a few things to note about the edit I most recently reverted. To start "most influential theory ever" was indeed an improper thing to include. There are two reasons for this: first, because  is not quite what the source says—the SEP entry says it was the most influential theory of exploitation ever set forth. I suspect this is just an issue of wording, but that distinction is important, for obvious reasons. Second, let's assume for the sake of argument the source did say the theory was the most influential ever. It's still our job as editors to contextualize subjective statements even if they're from reliable, respected sources, like SEP. I could probably find a respectable political scientist who has argued that President FDR was the best President ever for the American economy, and I could also probably find someone else who would say the same thing for Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton. But superlative claims—best, worst, greatest, largest, most influential, most creative—are very, very tricky. For something like the world's tallest tower, it can be fairly straightforward: sources can give a tower's height and reasonably state "this is taller than all the others". Obviously, it's harder to do that with something like influence or economy—so whenever you write "X is the most _____", you are actually likely violating WP:NPOV, because there will almost certainly be disagreement among reasonable sources. 
It is actually probably true that Marx theory is the most influential theory of exploitation (though remember, Wikipedia is about verifiability of claims, not truth, in my opinion. But we should always be cautious with superlatives. A better way to phrase this would be: ""Karl Marx's theory of exploitation has been described in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as the most influential theory of exploitation" plus a citation. Personally, I think at least two sources are needed for superlative claims (and perhaps more). SEP is very well respected, so you could argue that sentence I just wrote is fine on its own, but it would definitely be strengthened by another citation to a different author. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs)  03:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for assuming good faith. It is now more obvious that «By far the most influential theory of exploitation ever set forth is that of Karl Marx» is different from «Karl Marx's theory of exploitation is considered to be the most influential theory ever set forth», although it was mostly due to paraphrasing, and that it's not really the best way to put it since it's just one source. this is the closest I got to similar phrasing. It's better if we attribute it to the Encyclopedia, as you stated. --BunnyyHop (talk) 03:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion for ongoing revisions