A prominent view in contemporary philosophical debates about capitalism defines exploitation in terms of domination. The view is less convincing than it may first appear.
The domination occurs after the labor transaction has already been finalized. You agree to a work arrangement for X dollars. No domination has occurred, yet. It first arises when your boss asks you to do something, and then you have to ask yourself, “what happens if I say no?” If the answer is “then I may get fired, demoted, or otherwise punished, without any recourse to fair procedures and negotiated agreements which reflect the interests of all parties involved” then you are being dominated.
Yeah maybe a freedom objection where the source of the unfreedom is arbitrariness? Although, you could have a dispute resolution system that is plenty inconsistent even if it is more democratically legitimate (as any activism surely teaches us).
The distinction between voluntary exchange and coercive power is important. Unequal bargaining power alone isn't domination or exploitation : If both remain free to refuse the exchange.
There’s another hidden assumption in the exploitation argument: that the worker is entitled to the entire value of what they produce. The worker receives a guaranteed wage in the present, regardless of whether the venture ultimately succeeds. The entrepreneur foregoes that certainty, advances capital today, and bears the risk in the hope of a future profit.
Profit isn't “uncompensated labor.” Profit is the entrepreneur’s uncertain reward for successfully anticipating and serving consumer demand.
This essay is bizarre. It should be obvious that it’s impossible to eliminate domination, exploitation, and inequality under a system of Liberal competition. All you have to do is consider any sporting event and think about how you could achieve those goals. You couldn’t do it without destroying the game. Equal competition makes no sense and is pointless. Trying to eliminate domination defeats the whole point of the game. The goal of competition is to dominate or eliminate the competition. Competition is about exploiting your opponent’s weaknesses. Redistributing points from winners to losers also makes no sense. Market competition is literally the same thing as a sporting event. There is a whole book devoted to exposing the follies of trying to correct or equalize competition, it’s called Harrison Bergeron.
Market Socialism is a contradiction in terms. Real Socialism is not based on a market system, it’s based on alternatives to the market such as: cooperation, coordination, social contract, planning, state ownership, democracy, commonality, etc. It’s only under these arrangements that Socialist goals can be accomplished. It’s the only way that the means of production can serve the people as a whole.
This essay exposes the poverty of the DSA and why it’s really just an extended form of Social Democracy. Its not Socialist. This is probably due to their focus on revolutionary theory rather than political economy. They are bound to repeat the mistakes of past Communist countries. If you ignore political economy you are doomed to failure.
Without having done the reading on this topic, I will just report my sense from Marx in Capital that exploitation seems more like a term like employment in the sense of “put to work”—like the capitalist puts people to work on a situation and the unique qualities of labor power improve that situation.
The idea of externalities then seems attractive to explain the varied kinds of problems that arise when (1) the profit motive is with reference to a competitive global marketplace and (2) the traits within the labor pool is in some sense selected by the owners. Marx, in other words, leads me to consider the societal implications of the process and what it is producing in addition to surplus value. So at some level I have a hard time conceiving of exploitation as *the* wrong done in any particular situation. Chapter 10 of Capital runs through an incredible array of ills and wrongs seemingly exacerbated by capitalism, but I am not certain they are placed at the feet primarily of exploitation.
Just reporting my difficulty with the inquiry, although I appreciate the analytical approach.
The domination occurs after the labor transaction has already been finalized. You agree to a work arrangement for X dollars. No domination has occurred, yet. It first arises when your boss asks you to do something, and then you have to ask yourself, “what happens if I say no?” If the answer is “then I may get fired, demoted, or otherwise punished, without any recourse to fair procedures and negotiated agreements which reflect the interests of all parties involved” then you are being dominated.
Yeah maybe a freedom objection where the source of the unfreedom is arbitrariness? Although, you could have a dispute resolution system that is plenty inconsistent even if it is more democratically legitimate (as any activism surely teaches us).
This artwork is so cool. I’m new here. Are you the artist?
The distinction between voluntary exchange and coercive power is important. Unequal bargaining power alone isn't domination or exploitation : If both remain free to refuse the exchange.
There’s another hidden assumption in the exploitation argument: that the worker is entitled to the entire value of what they produce. The worker receives a guaranteed wage in the present, regardless of whether the venture ultimately succeeds. The entrepreneur foregoes that certainty, advances capital today, and bears the risk in the hope of a future profit.
Profit isn't “uncompensated labor.” Profit is the entrepreneur’s uncertain reward for successfully anticipating and serving consumer demand.
This essay is bizarre. It should be obvious that it’s impossible to eliminate domination, exploitation, and inequality under a system of Liberal competition. All you have to do is consider any sporting event and think about how you could achieve those goals. You couldn’t do it without destroying the game. Equal competition makes no sense and is pointless. Trying to eliminate domination defeats the whole point of the game. The goal of competition is to dominate or eliminate the competition. Competition is about exploiting your opponent’s weaknesses. Redistributing points from winners to losers also makes no sense. Market competition is literally the same thing as a sporting event. There is a whole book devoted to exposing the follies of trying to correct or equalize competition, it’s called Harrison Bergeron.
Market Socialism is a contradiction in terms. Real Socialism is not based on a market system, it’s based on alternatives to the market such as: cooperation, coordination, social contract, planning, state ownership, democracy, commonality, etc. It’s only under these arrangements that Socialist goals can be accomplished. It’s the only way that the means of production can serve the people as a whole.
This essay exposes the poverty of the DSA and why it’s really just an extended form of Social Democracy. Its not Socialist. This is probably due to their focus on revolutionary theory rather than political economy. They are bound to repeat the mistakes of past Communist countries. If you ignore political economy you are doomed to failure.
Considering private property is based on the paganism of Roman “dominium”, I’d say yeah sure.
Without having done the reading on this topic, I will just report my sense from Marx in Capital that exploitation seems more like a term like employment in the sense of “put to work”—like the capitalist puts people to work on a situation and the unique qualities of labor power improve that situation.
The idea of externalities then seems attractive to explain the varied kinds of problems that arise when (1) the profit motive is with reference to a competitive global marketplace and (2) the traits within the labor pool is in some sense selected by the owners. Marx, in other words, leads me to consider the societal implications of the process and what it is producing in addition to surplus value. So at some level I have a hard time conceiving of exploitation as *the* wrong done in any particular situation. Chapter 10 of Capital runs through an incredible array of ills and wrongs seemingly exacerbated by capitalism, but I am not certain they are placed at the feet primarily of exploitation.
Just reporting my difficulty with the inquiry, although I appreciate the analytical approach.