exploitation and morality 1 of 2

Q. Are all capitalists bad people?
A. some are, some aren't but they all have to exploit workers in order to make a profit. Class and exploitation are objective concepts. They are meant to explain social phenomena. They also imply a strong moral critique of capitalism in general- as a whole. They are not concepts that are meant to explain the personalities or moral character of individuals. Capitalists are compelled by necessity to exploit workers. They have no choice in this issue. Do we blame them or do we blame the system? Often particularly blatant acts of individual exploitation do seem worthy of individual condemnation- we might condemn the GAP for exploiting little girls in Saipan, or WalMart for not paying its workers a living wage- but these individual condemnations have to be seen as part of a larger critique of capitalism in general. Are the individuals who make these decisions bad people? One often wonders how some CEOs go to sleep at night, but contemplating the subjective mentality of the ruling class is more of an aimless subjective past-time than an important issue for economic or social thought.

Q.is marx creating a false dichotomy? doesn't everyone- including capitalists- work?
A. Yes, many capitalists may perform various tasks in the course of a work day. But it's not the type of work but the relation to the means of production. Capitalists may perform labor. But because capitalists own the means of production, they own the social product. They can then decide how much to pay workers, how much to pay themselves and how much to reinvest in production. These decisions are based on their own self-interests as capitalists. These decisions have meaningful social consequences.

Q. Is exploitation always bad? My friend owns a used bookstore. He's not super rich- he can barely pay his mortgage. his 2 employees are well paid and happy. he gets along well with them.... it doesn't seem like exploitation to me...!
A. We often don't have a problem agreeing that Exxon, Nike, or GM exploits its workers. The large, impersonal nature of these organizations, their huge corporate profits in comparison to their meager wage bills, the massive layoffs and restructuring that have disasterous consequence all in the name of profit. It makes intuitive sense that these capitalists are benefiting from the exploitation of their workers.
This is not as obvious with tiny capitalists. The French word for tiny capitalist is Petit Bourgeois. The PB differ enough from large capitalists that they are usually placed in a separate class, distinct from capitalists and workers- the PB class. The PB own small businesses, hire just a few workers and do not have a stake in the large productive forces of society where most of the SV is created for the capitalist class.
Working for a small capitalist can sometimes be very exploitative, because the profit margin is so low the workers have to really work hard and don't get paid all that well. at other times, workers are well paid, develop personal relations with boss, etc. In these later cases, it is often hard to condemn small capitalists.
if all capitalism was petty bourgeois: it wouldn't elicit the sort of moral outrage that corporate capitalism does. Yet there are still fairer, more democratic models of production. It's nothing personal (just like when a capitalist does something immoral in the name of profit. Capitalist morality is different.)
is small capitalism possible? no. competition forces capitalists to chase bigger and bigger profits and to grow and grow, centralize. (people often associate perfect competition with an ideal capitalism, but perfect competition leads to the centralization of capital.) In order to check this: strong barriers to capital mobility, progressive tax on profits, things that actually hinder competition. this would result in regional monopolies, pissed off capitalists... relation of capital to the state.
some resources are natural, large monopolies
Instead of asking if small capitalism is possible, picture what it would be like if all enterprises- big

Category:

Education

Tags:

• rate
• of
• exploitation
• morality
• globalization
• petit
• bourgeois
• surplus
• value
• variable
• capital
• constant
• capital
• labor
• theory
• of
• value
• ltr
• exchange
• supply
• and
• demand
• class
• struggle
• value
• exchange
• labor
• labour
• marx
• engels
• capitalism
• socialism
• communism
• economics
• bourgeois
• buy
• sell
• use
• value
• consumer
• consume
• production
• circuit
• of
• capital
• economics
• politics

[BrettWeir007]

Nobody forces workers at wal mart to work there. If you want a better job, get a degree and go work somewhere better. What is your alternative, should we all work for the government? ITs amazing that we still have these arguments decades after the soviet union fell. Communism does not work, capitalism is not perfect but its the best system we have.

[brendanmcooney]

@BrettWeir007 There are a lot of people with degrees that don't have jobs right now. That old argument doesn't work. It's amazing 4 years into this economic crisis that people are still throwing out that tired old right-wing argument. It's also amazing that so long after the fall of the soviet union that people still cling to the idea that that system was the only alternative to capitalism. It is time to reimagine a different alternative to capitalism.

[jeebiskebowski]

Exploitation cannot exist with consent.

[brendanmcooney]

@jeebiskebowski. See my video "manufacturing consent"

[10kensea79]

Could it be said that a worker is exploiting the capitalist's need for labor? Especially skilled workers who are going to provide their labor and skills to the company who they can exploit the most for their own profit?

[brendanmcooney]

@10kensea79. Exploitation means there is a mathematical difference between the value created by workers and the value of wages. Yes capital needs labor. Yes skilled laborers are paid more. But if capital couldn't make a profit, if it had to pay workers more in wages then the value they created, capital wouldn't hire workers and it would cease to be capital.

[chocomeerkat]

Capitalism is immoral because it can't work without poverty. There has to be a certain percentage of people earning a slave wage in order for it to work for others.

[a46475]

Capital refers only to the human-created tools of production. It would rather be immoral and unjust to confiscate privately created capital for public use without just compensation, the same way it would be immoral and unjust to confiscate publicly created capital for private use without just compensation. There is a fundamental error that Marxists/Socialists as well as Austrians/Libertarians both make in economic and social thought...

[a46475]

They both conflate land and capital as being the same thing (i.e. Capital). An understanding of Ricardo's Law of Rent and the concept of the "Margin of Production" is to understand to source of poverty amidst abundance and the injustice on which it is ultimately based. wealthandwant(dot)com/themes/M­argin_of_Production(dot)html offers the best basic explanation of the concepts.

[Weeki5]

@chocomeerkat. Your statement is inherently false because you ignore the relative nature of "slave wage". In other less developed countries, the lowest US wage is beyond their ability to imagine. Thus, capitalism works in the US without destitute workers.

[jaybeebles]

Good video. One question I rarely hear is, to what extent does capitalism establish a meritocracy? I have my own answer to the question, but for the sake of making a unique youtube comment I won't spout my own opinion just now. it's worth thinking about, though, considering the VAST amount of opinion and ideology based on the premise that we live in a meritocracy.

[Mauser9513]

@TheGodofAtheists Capitalists are only necessary because it is a forced institution in our society to have private ownership. If Capital was not in the hands of one or a few people, it would be collective.

[TheGodofAtheists]

@brendanmcooney Same goes for workers. Take McDonalds for example. Without the capitalists and the capital (machinery) all you would have are workers turning their wrists in a field making zero dollars an hour. Workers and Capitalists both need each other, but Capitalists can just call the shots because their more valuable as proved in the example. All it comes down to be choice - are you going to put a gun to a person’s head and force them give another a job? Are you?