Exploitation and Morality

By Brendan Mcooney www.kapitalism101.wordpress.com

Exploitation is a heavy word. The term implies a strong moral critique of capitalism. Many people identify with this, but it turns others off. This video will deal with this problem by attempting to provide the proper perspective for questions surrounding the moral dimension of the theory of exploitation.

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 monopoliesInstead of asking if small capitalism is possible, picture what it would be like if all enterprises- big or small- were collectively run by workers.

Q. globalization example?- aren’t sweatshops good for 3rd world workers?
A. The function of 3rd world labor: primitive accumulation, industrial reserve army1stly. The huge amount of SV extracted from foreign workers is not going to those countries to develop infrastructure, improve social spending or in any way better the lives of workers. Instead it flows into the coffers of international capitalists. Are the meager wages paid to 3rd world workers really enough to develop the social infrastructure necessary to bring these economies in line with the 1st world? No.2ndly. It is wrong to assume that one day the whole world will look like a 1st world country. Capital develops geographical space unevenly as it flows around the globe. It creates pockets of wealth and pockets of poverty- as seen in the disparities between the 1st world and the 3rd world and as seen in the disparities within the 1st world. There are many places in the US which resemble a 3rd world country. If capitalism can’t lift americans out of poverty how do we expect it to lift Chinese workers out of poverty?

3rdly. Much of globalization entails the destruction of subsistence agriculture and the proletarianization of peasntry. ie. by flooding mexico with cheap agricultural products, nafta caused the dislocation of many mexican farmers who then migrated to the border to find work in the maquiladora sector. If the proletarianization of 3rd world workers allows them to buy a modicum of consumer goods this doesn’t mean that they have better lives, more control over their lives, or more social power. It actually means that they are now dependent on a capitalist for their livelihood- forced to sell their labor for a wage (wage slavery).4. The effect on 1st world workers is to drive down wages and break unions. Look at american economy. The effect of freer capital mobility is always bad for workers. Human beings can’t move that fast.

Q.Are we promoting violence against capitalists?
A. No. But capitalism enforces exploitation with violence. Therefore the call for its abolition brings a violent response from capital. Of course a transition to a post-capitalist society could, theoretically, by peaceful. But it would require taking away capital (social power) from capitalists. Assuming most capitalists won’t just give away their social power, it will have to be taken by force- state force, armed force, violence, whatever. The question of revolutionary tactics is a tricky one because capitalism is so entrenched, has such a powerful monopoly on economic force and physical force; has such a hegemonic grip on our culture… it seems inescapable. So really, capitalism shouldn’t have much to fear by some people sitting around and talking about the possibility of one day having a more just society. But it does. Capitalism can’t even tolerate a little bit of dissent. I think that is because 1. capitalists know, deep down, that we are right and it bothers them; and 2. they are worried dissent among workers could interfere with profits.