Is capitalism inherently exploitative?

Introduction

The question of whether capitalism is inherently exploitative relies heavily on ones

conception of exploitation. Throughout the literature on Marx, philosophers and
economists have provided different conceptions of exploitation, based on a number
of philosophical principles. This essay will focus on three groups of conceptions.
The first group of conceptions appeal to Marxs notion of surplus value to explain
exploitation. The second group of conceptions appeal to the labour process and
working conditions to explain exploitation. These conceptions of exploitation can be
distinguished as either amoral structural criticisms or normative criticisms.
Typically, writers who focus on structural exploitation do not see capitalism as
inherently exploitative, as exploitation can be reduced or removed through
increasing the wages and living standards of the worker. These conceptions use the
material consequences of capitalism to identify exploitation. Normative criticisms of
capitalisms on the other hand, argue that regardless of changes in wages or living
conditions, capitalism will continue to be exploitative by virtue of its structure. The
final conception of exploitation appeals to the idea of human nature, and seeks to
merge the structural and normative conceptions of exploitation. This conception
argues that exploitation takes place in the normative sense that human nature is
degraded, and that the structure of capitalism inherently create the conditions where
exploitation in this sense can take place. Having examined a number of the
conceptions of exploitation and assessed whether they are inherent in the capitalist
system, I will conclude that their inherent nature in capitalism is not the most
valuable part of Marxs works. While Marx predicts the downfall of capitalism by
virtue of its exploitative nature, I will argue that one does not have to agree with
Marxs materialist view of history to accept his claims. Marx provides numerous
frameworks through which to explore exploitation, and this I will argue is his most
valuable contribution.

Conceptions of exploitation centered on the notion of surplus value

This first group of conceptions has its foundation in the fact that the wage laborer
receives less value than he creates, and the capitalist appropriates this surplus value
from the laborer (Brown, 2014, 360). These conceptions of exploitation are almost
certainly rooted in Marxs view that capitalism involves a disharmony of interest
between the capitalist and the worker. According to Marx, the capitalist prioritizes
profit, which forces him to pay the worker as little as possible.

Brown argues that it is unjustified for the capitalist to appropriate the surplus value
of the worker simply by virtue of his property rights in the means of production, and
therefore he is exploiting the worker (Brown, 2014, 379). This view is shared by
Jonathan Wolff who argues that Marxs definition of exploitation is limited to
relations of economic exchange under conditions where there is no justified right to
capital; that is, to earn money purely in virtue of one's property holdings (pg.105). It
is important to note that their conceptions of exploitation are normative in nature.
Robert Nozick rejects Brown and Wolffs conception of exploitation, arguing that the
labourer is not entitled to the full value of what he creates, as he has not undertaken
the risk that the capitalist has in acquiring the means of production and establishing
a firm. Nozick argues that once the notion of risk undertaken by the capitalist is
taken into consideration, it is hard to see the labourer as exploited. This is because if
the worker expects to benefit from the successful risk taking of the capitalist, he must
also be willing to bear the burden if an enterprise fails, which is almost never the
case (Nozick, 1974, 255). He also argues that according to the theory of surplus
value, exploitation can take place under any society in which investment takes place
for a greater future product or where those who are unable to work are subsidized
by the labour of others (Nozick, 1974, 253). Under this conception of exploitation it
appears Nozick does not consider capitalism to be inherently exploitative, as he
views the notion of surplus value and property rights as justified. While Nozick
address the idea that the extraction of surplus value as a concept is not exploitative,
he does not give much attention to Marxs notion of class conflict between capitalists
and workers due to their conflicting interests.

Joan Robinson on the other hand argues that the class conflict between the capitalists
and the worker can lead to exploitation. Unlike Nozick however, she is talking about
exploitation in the structural sense, rather than the normative. The class conflict
creates a structural problem in the form of conflicting interests. She argues that the
idea of surplus value is a macro concept, meaning that that the rate of exploitation is
meaningful only at an aggregate social level, and not at the level of the individual
firm or individual worker. This structural view is also adopted by Wolff, who
argues that the definition of exploitation is not relational: whether one is exploited
depends on facts about the economy as a whole, rather than one's particular contract
of employment (Wolff, 1999, 106). In trying to represent exploitation structurally,
Robinson chooses to conceptualize or express the rate of exploitation as the ratio of
profits to wages in national output (Barager, 2003, 470). It seems that under
Robinsons view exploitation can be both reduced and removed completely through
the increase in wages. Under this conception, exploitation is not inherent in
capitalism as it is a structural problem that can be fixed.

This conception of exploitation does however have some flaws. Although there are
certainly cases of humanitarian capitalists who positively seek to improve the
experiences of their workers, effective change and improvement in working
conditions are almost always imposed by the State in the form of legislatively
imposed minimum wages and workplace regulations. If exploitation must be
removed externally, the charge that the capitalist system is inherently exploitative
acquires more weight. It is difficult to know for certain how capitalists would act
without state regulation, and the question perhaps turns more on the question of
human nature than the capitalist structure itself. Marx may object to this as he views
human nature as reflective of the society in which man finds himself, writing, the
human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is
the ensemble of the social relations (Marx, 2000, 172). I would argue however that
exploitation of workers has also taken place under communist societies such as
Maos China and Stalins Soviet Union. I note that there is disagreement as to the
degree these societies were attempting to implement Marxs ideals (Daniels, 2007)
but as Marx himself did not wish to say what the inevitable communist society
would look like (Marx, 2000, 43) this question is difficult to answer. Thinking about
exploitation in this way does however raise some interesting questions. If
exploitation is in human nature, is capitalism as a system that structurally rewards
exploitation, stable? One might argue that while exploitation is not inherent in the
capitalist system, the system does provide a framework where the capitalist is
rewarded when he exploits his workers, therefore increasing its likelihood. As a
result one does not need to subscribe entirely to Marxs views of capitalism while
still acknowledging his criticisms

Conception of exploitation centered on the labour process

Barager, while praising Robinson for identifying structural exploitation in Marxs

work, criticizes her for focusing her analysis on the exploitation on wages, while
failing to consider the labour process, which is absolutely crucial for Marxs analysis
of exploitation. Barager argues that for Marx, the class struggle associated with
exploitation in capitalism revolves less around the value of labour power, as
expressed monetarily in the form of wages, but more importantly around the
quantity and quality of the labour performed (Barager, 2003, 472). This emphasis on
the labour process is largely responsible for this next group of conceptions of
exploitation, which rely heavily on the notion that the labourer works, under the
direction, supervision, and control of the capitalist.

Brown argues that exploitation can take place in the Kantian sense, that the worker is
used as means to an end rather than an end in himself. He acknowledges that the
Kantian principle does not imply that a person may not direct, supervise, and control
the labor power of other people for his or her own ends, but he argues that the
capitalist mode of production is distinctive in that its direction, supervision, and
control of labor power are overwhelming. Brown argues that laborers take no part in
decisions over the direction of production but also no aspect of their daily labor is
left undirected, unsupervised, and uncontrolled. They are constantly monitored and
subject to rules which cover every detail of labor: everything from what he should
wear and how much time he has to perform bodily functions (Brown, 2014, 369).
Take for example the recent case of factory workers in the US who were not allowed
to offer prayers during their lunch break (Henderson). Surely a decision such as this,
which does not respect the autonomy of the worker, is exploitative in the Kantian
sense.

Other conceptions of exploitation build on the idea that the labourer is forced to
work for the capitalist. Marxs theory explains exploitation by reference to the
workers not having access to the means of production. As a result, they are forced to
sell their labour to access the means of production, as they do not have the capital to
hire such a means. They are therefore forced to work for the capitalist (Nozick, 1974,
253-4). Nozick makes the point that many workers now do have access to capital in
the form of private property and union pension funds, yet rarely is the money used
to establish worker controlled factories (Nozick, 1974, 255). Furthermore, from a
technical standpoint, the means of production we have currently are radically
different from Marxs time. Today through technology and Internet, the means of
producing value are far easier to access than ever before. Wolff brings this point to
light when he argues that definition of exploitation should not be relational: whether
one is exploited depends on facts about the economy as a whole (Wolf, 1999, 106).
What may have appeared as an inherently exploitative aspect of capitalism, stops
being so as a result of technical and economic changes to the structure.

Crocker has proposes an alternative normative conception of exploitation, which

argues that exploitation is the undemocratic control of production (Crocker, 1972,
202). Under this conception, exploitation is inherent in the capitalist mode of
production. He argues that the issue of exploitation has not been given adequate
attention, as it is often understood only in terms of a distributive injustice. As we
have seen from Robinson, under these conceptions, exploitation can be removed
from the system through increasing wages. He argues because within today's
industrial societies, high wages or extensive welfare measures have largely
significantly improved the material conditions of the worker, the sting of this
injustice has been removed (Crocker, 1972, 202). He argues that such conceptions of
exploitation focus too much on the Marxs structural critique and less on his moral
critique of the capitalist structure. Crocker argues that conception of exploitation
which relies on the structural fact of surplus values, would not be inherent to
capitalism, as even under communism, surplus value is deducted, but it is used for
the maintenance and expansion of production and for social and welfare purposes,
unlike under capitalism where the emphasis is placed on the expansion of
productive capacity (Crocker, 1972, 207). Marx explicitly states this in Critique of
the Gotha Program, writing that deductions from the undiminished proceeds of
labour should be used for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health
services [and] funds for those unable to work (Marx, 2000, 613). He argues that
exploitation does not hinge on what is returned to the worker, i.e. the material
conditions of capitalism, but that the surplus value that is not controlled by a
minority group, which thereby dominates the structure and development of the
economy and society (Crocker, 1972, 207-8). Crocker has identified exploitation in
the normative sense that

Conceptions of exploitation based on human nature

The final conception of exploitation rests on the notion of mutual exploitation, a

concept Marx wrote about earlier in his career (Marx, 2000, 203). Wolff argues that
Marx was referring to both parties being exploited under the same transaction.
There is a conceptual difficulty here as to how a transaction can be unfair to both
parties. Wolff responds that this difficulty only occurs if we think of exploitation as
violating some fairness norm (Wolf, 1999, 115). He argues that exploitation violates a
flourishing norm, and that parties to an economic transaction under capitalism,
degrade the nature of both themselves and their trading partner. This is because
each person is treated simply as a means to the pursuit of self-interest, rather than a
member of the same community with needs of his or her own (Wolff, 1972, 119).
This idea is also reflected in how capitalism refers to people as the consumer,
entrenching the idea that consumption is central purpose of the individual. Wolffs
conception of exploitation is interesting as it attempts to synthesize the normative
and structural critiques of capitalism. His normative criticism is that the nature of all
involved in the capitalist mode of production is degraded, therefore exploiting
everyone involved. He does not however assign guilt to any of the parties, arguing
that each person is forced, by the circumstance that they live under capitalist
economic structures, which make room for only certain sorts of interaction, to make a
trade that leads both parties away from a properly flourishing life. Wolff appears to
take the view that capitalism is inherently exploitative in both the structural and
normative sense.

Conclusion

Having surveyed a number of conceptualizations of exploitation, it appears that the

question of whether capitalism is inherently exploitative has been answered in
different ways by different writers. We have seen that exploitation can take place at
the both the structural level and the normative level. Nevertheless, there is little
consensus as to whether exploitation in these forms is inherent to capitalism. Marx
certainly believes that capitalism was inherently exploitative as he made both
structural and normative claims against it. His materialist conception of history,
which argued that the conditions of capitalism would generate its demise, makes this
very clear. I however am still uncertain as to whether capitalism is inherently
exploitative. I would argue that the issue of the inherently exploitative nature of
capitalism should not be of chief concerns to those who study Marx, as his notion of
inherent exploitation is grounded in the capitalist structure of particular historical
period. I would argue that the more valuable part of Marxs work on criticizing
capitalism is providing a framework through which exploitation can be identified.
This part of Marx is valuable to all, not only those who subscribe to his materialist
conception of history.
 Bibliography

- Marx, Karl, and David McLellan. Selected Writings. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2000. Print.

- Baragar, Fletcher. "Joan Robinson On Marx". Review of Political Economy 15.4

(2003): 467-482. Web.

- Brown, Alexander. "Marx On Exploitation: A Kantian Perspective". Rethinking

Marxism 26.3 (2014): 360-381. Web.

- Crocker, Lawrence. "Marx's Concept Of Exploitation". Social Theory and

Practice 2.2 (1972): 201-215. Web.

- Daniels, Robert. Was Stalin Really a Communist The Rise And Fall Of
Communism In Russia. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007. 266-272. Print.

- Nozick, Robert. Anarchy, State, And Utopia. New York: Basic Books, 1974.
Print.

- Wolff, Jonathan. "Marx And Exploitation". The Journal of Ethics 3.2 (1999): 105-
120. Web.