The term "exploitation" often conjures up images of workers laboring in sweatshops for 12 hours or more per day, for pennies an hour, driven by a merciless overseer.
ADEREMI MEDUPIN
Popular but partial perceptions of exploitation
In an obviously different context to the one we’re dealing with here, the famous physicist, Albert Einstein, is quoted as remarking that, “not everything that counts can be counted”. In effect, real life situations throw up scenarios in which what is not directly visible may indeed assert greater influence on the visible images unfolding much more significant than what is seen nakedly through one’s eyes. A practical enactment of Einstein’s philosophical statement is revealed through the phenomenon of exploitation, about which, not surprising, there are several renditions, ranging from the trivial to the rigorous. For example, to an online dictionary, dictionary.com, “exploitation is a noun form of the verb exploit, which commonly means to take advantage in such a way. The adjective form is exploitative, as in exploitative practices. As a verb, exploit can also be used in a more neutral way that doesn’t imply selfishness: to make the best use of something, especially an opportunity, or to create a profit or other benefit. But when the verb is applied to people, it is always used negatively”. Another offer is that “exploitation can also be used in a way that means the use of something, especially for profit.” Still, a commentator insists that “exploitation is most commonly used in a negative way. One phrase in which it has this negative sense is exploitation film, a low-budget movie characterized by extreme violence, excessive gore, gratuitous sex, or other content meant to shock, disgust, or titillate”.
At the racial sphere, there is the related term blaxploitation which, in a commentator’s words, refers to the exploitation of Black people and stereotypes about them, especially in movies featuring or intending to appeal to Black people. All these as if in anticipation of an online platform’s blunt poser: What is exploitation? The answer provided is that: Exploitation involves being groomed, forced or coerced into doing something that you don’t want to do for someone else’s gain. People who are being exploited can find themselves in situations where they experience abuse and violence, and may be forced to take part in criminal activities.
It is these diverse renditions that lead to the notion of “types of exploitation”, embracing: (i) sexual exploitation-which is when someone is deceived, coerced or forced to take part in sexual activity; (ii) labour exploitation-our focus here-hence more on this later; (iii) domestic servitude-in which a domestic worker is not free to leave his or her employment and is abused and underpaid, if paid at all, victims commonly work 10 to 16 hours a day for little or no pay; (iv) forced marriage-where one or both people do not consent to a marriage; (v) forced criminality, more popularly known as human trafficking-is where the victim is forced to engage in illegal activities such as street crime, begging, or drug trafficking; and (vi) organ harvesting-also called organ procurement-which is a surgical procedure that removes organs or tissues for reuse, typically for organ transplantation-but the category of interest here is where the victims are kidnapped and have an organ forcefully removed-usually after being tricked into believing they require an operation and while under anesthetic have an organ removed, without knowledge or consent; etc.
Of all these types of exploitation, one –labour exploitation-stands out as invisible especially under the market economy of our age, while the others are visible. It is this invisible category of exploitation that is of our immediate interest given its global and historical prevalence. It is pertinent to note that whereas all the visible types of exploitation are criminal by definition, labour exploitation may be within the law as obtained in the typical capitalist economy even if it can be more widespread. But first, the visible category.
Visible exploitation
Going back to earlier phases of human history starting with slavery, the slave was forced by sword to work for the master, who provided just enough to keep the slave alive--all the rest of the fruits of their labour were forcefully appropriated by the slave-owner. Similarly, under feudalism as it arose in its classical form in Europe, the serfs worked on a plot of land that belonged to the lord. They worked for part of the time for themselves, producing their means of subsistence, and the rest of the time, the product belonged to the lord. Thus, the terms of exploitation are clear to serf and lord alike--the serf labours for the lord, and receives nothing from the lord in return. In both of these cases, the exploitation was visible as the slave could see what he produced but taken by the master just as each feudal peasant knew exactly what proportion of his labour had to be handed over to the aristocracy; the rest was his or hers to use.
As the narration has gone so far, the logic of an argument to the effect that exploitation was very real under the pre-capitalist economic systems is what must have registered rightly in the mind of the reader that exploitation has been carried out and experienced under different economic systems in history. The crucial implication of this correct understanding is that exploitation is not unique to capitalism; for, as Gary Lapon explains in a highly informed article, titled, “What do we mean by exploitation?” published on socialistworker.org web on September 28, 2011, exploitation has been a feature of all class societies, which are divided into two main classes, an exploited class that produces the wealth and an exploiter class that expropriates or in popular lingo, corners it. What is of especial relevance to our theme is the fact that he noted that under slavery and feudalism, exploitation is naked and obvious to both the exploiter and the exploited alike. However, there are instances where exploitation is not visible but no less real; the capitalist economic system embodies this invisible type of exploitation, a proof of how capitalism is different among the main forms of class societies, the focus of the next section.
The invisible type of exploitation
It is very important to acknowledge the unique role of the German philosopher, Karl Marx, in his contribution to the understanding of the nature and logic of the invisible character of exploitation under the capitalist system. Marx’s thesis is that the exploitative nature of labour is hidden by the wage system. His theory is based on the idea that workers are not compensated for the full value of their labour, and that the surplus value created by their labour is appropriated by the capitalist class. Except in cases of outright fraud, workers are hired, labour for a given amount of time and receive a wage in return. Therefore, it appears on the surface that an equal exchange has taken place--but this is not the actual case. The distinction between "labour-power" and "labour" is the key to understanding exploitation under capitalism. When a capitalist pays a worker a wage, they are not paying for the value of a certain amount of completed labour, but for labour-power. Practically, this refers to an employer who hires a labourer who produces more value in an hour than what the employer pays her/him per hour. This difference between the wage and the price is called the surplus-value. Simply put, economic exploitation consists in capitalists’ forced appropriation of the surplus-value produced by labourers in order to create a profit. Indeed, Gary Lapon provides a useful insight into our theme, hence its recall here:
The term "exploitation" often conjures up images of workers laboring in sweatshops for 12 hours or more per day, for pennies an hour, driven by a merciless overseer. This is contrasted to the ideal of a "fair wage day's wage for a fair day's work"--the supposedly "normal" situation under capitalism in which workers receive a decent wage, enough for a "middle class" standard of living, health insurance and security in their retirement. Sweatshops are horrific examples of exploitation that persist to this day. But Karl Marx had a broader and more scientific definition of exploitation: the forced appropriation of the unpaid labor of workers. Under this definition, all working-class people are exploited. Marx argued that the ultimate source of profit, the driving force behind capitalist production, is the unpaid labor of workers. So for Marx, exploitation forms the foundation of the capitalist system.
The interesting dimension of the above process is that it is not visible and therefore easily passes as legitimate. As Fred Magdoff and John Bellamy Foster-two respectable Marxist intellectuals- ably capture the scenario of how exploitation is widely misconceived and invariably ignored as being normal or even natural, in the following extended but easy to comprehend submission, that:
The wealthy, most establishment economists, and much of the general public view the existing relations between labor and capital to be completely rational and fair. Enshrined in the entire legal system, this way of thinking assumes these relations are based on an equal exchange. After all, workers are free to take a job with a given salary and benefits (if any) or not. For their part, capitalists will only employ workers when they can make a profit doing so. The relationship between boss and workers commonly appears as one of “equality,” as if it were a transparent contract mutually agreed upon with equal power on both sides. But, behind this appearance of rational and freely made decisions based on equal exchange lies a very different reality. The general relations between labor and capital are far from equal, with capital in a very strong position compared to most workers. The capitalist owns the land, the place of business, the machinery, the money used in the running of the business, and the jobs. The workers own nothing but their capacity to work, which they can sell, but under conditions not of their own choosing. A significant disadvantage that most workers face is that they are not able to make a living on their own, lacking the money capital, tools, and facilities with which to engage in production. Although starting a small business is sometimes an option, they often fail due to a lack of capital or difficult competition, while the most successful ones are absorbed by bigger companies. Thus, workers are forced to take jobs where and when they can find them.
Interestingly, there are a few critiques who accuse Marxist scholars of placing exclusive emphasis on capital-labour relationship in their analysis of exploitation. For example, Alicia Thamaseb, in the 2021 piece, “Marx Revised: The Exploitation of Women” published in Rerum Causae Students Journal of Philosophy has argued that “the Marxist account of exploitation is too narrowly defined because it merely focuses on the labour position in relation to production within the public sphere. It excludes activities happening outside the market setting which are also vulnerable to exploitation”. In this vein, according to the critique, the Marxist theory of exploitation analyses only labour exchanged for a wage. In other words, it only explains the labourers’ exploitation with regard to their position within the relations of production and their productivity. In essence, the argument insists, “the theory cannot deal with labour exploitation outside of a market setting, i.e., labour that is not sold to an employer or that is not exchanged for a wage. Consequently, the strict division between the public and private sphere compromises Marx’s analysis by neglecting, for example domestic work, care work, and uncommodifiable labour which is considered “non-labour” in the Marxist account of exploitation”. In particular, feminist theorists have argued almost persuasively that the reduction by Marx of all types of exploitation to only labour market exploitation leaves out much of the specific exploitation of women.
I am not sure the above criticism constitutes a fair charge against Marxist scholarship given the frontline role played by its adherents in defense of gender equity, their primary emphasis on class notwithstanding. The fact is, as articulated by Juan Carlos Cuestas and Bruce Philp in their 2010 paper, “Exploitation and the Class Struggle” published in Discussion Papers in Economics of Nottingham Trent University, United Kingdom: that capitalism is an exploitative economic system is one of the central tenets of Marxian social science. While the term “exploitation” may be used in many ways in contemporary economics — for example to describe situations where firms with monopoly power achieve abnormal profits — in Marxian economics it is defined in a specific way. Basically, in capitalism, to be exploited means working for longer than is necessary to produce the equivalent of what one consumes. In this analytical context, women are doubly exploited-primarily on the basis of their class and secondarily as members of the weaker sex-to invoke a popular terminology.
The essential validity of the foregoing submissions notwithstanding, the point made by Alicia Tahmaseb deserves to be taken on board, to the effect that: “Many of the labour work executed by women is undervalued or marginalised, generally degraded by society's value”. Concerning the position of Marxist analysts on the exploitation of women, a commentator has presented the issue albeit imperfectly in this way: For Marxists, the root cause of all forms of oppression consists in the division of society into classes. For many feminists, on the other hand, the oppression of women is rooted in the nature of men. In other words, Marxism deals with a form of inequality that arises from the class dynamics of capitalism. It understands the class inequality as the primary axis of oppression in capitalist societies. Feminism deals with another form of inequality which is the inequality between the sexes.
In practical terms, according to Marxist feminists, women's liberation can only be achieved by dismantling the capitalist systems in which, as they argue, much of women's labour is uncompensated. What Marxist feminists have done, therefore, is to extend traditional Marxist analysis by applying it to unpaid domestic labour and sex relations. After all, Marxism is a social, economic and political philosophy that analyses the impact of the ruling class on the labourers, leading to uneven distribution of wealth and privileges in the society. Hence, Marxist theories of gender are fundamentally concerned with analyzing the relation between class exploitation and gender inequality. Thus, women's oppression is regarded as the product of the economic, political, and social structures of capitalism. This is without prejudice to the fact that while condemnations of gender inequalities and patriarchal control in the family and society can be found in Marx's work from an early stage, it is alleged that Marx “did not have much to say on gender and the family”. This appears to be a weak allegation in the context of the philosophy and methodology of Marxism and given the fact that it has analyzed unpaid, reproductive “women's work” as an integral part of capitalism. Here, I recall the work of Eva Swidler in reference to how Maria Mies famously pointed out in Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale, under capitalism, with the creation of the category of “housewife,” “women’s labor is considered a natural resource, freely available like air and water.” In essence, therefore, the very philosophy of Marxist Feminism is that both men and women should be treated equally in society. It is the essentially invisible exploitation studied, comprehended and shared by Marx and his disciples that qualifies for and constitutes the focus of our engagement here given its ramifying and global nature across all capitalist economies of the world. This is what I call the essential, primary, class exploitation.
Ending essential exploitation and exposing the intellectual collaborators
The essentially exploitative nature of capitalism is affirmed by John Bellamy Foster, Brett Clark and Hannah Holleman in their December 2019 article in the Monthly Review Magazine titled: “Capitalism and Robbery-The Expropriation of Land, Labor, and Corporeal Life”, on the note that: historical capitalism cannot be understood aside from its existence as a colonial/imperialist world system in which the violent exercise of power is an ever-present reality. It is easily demonstrable that the worker is exploited when s/he does not keep or control the value created by his/her own labour power. This point is the focus of Michael Lebowitz in the June 1, 2004 piece, “What Keeps Capitalism Going?” where the author argues that:
Capitalism is a relationship in which the separation of working people from the means of work and the organization of the economy by those who own those means of work has as its result that, in order to survive, people must engage in a transaction—they must sell their ability to work to those owners. But, the characteristic of capitalism is not simply that the mass of people must be wage-laborers. It is also that those who are purchasing that capacity to perform labor have one thing and only one thing that interests them—profits (and more profits); that is to say, the purchasers of labor-power are capitalists, and their goal is to make their capital grow.
A basic point to note in Michael Lebowitz’s incisive argument is that the logic of capital has nothing to do with the needs of human beings. After all, what is capital? It is the result of exploitation. It is the workers’ own product which has been turned against them, a product in the form of tools, machinery—indeed, all the products of human activity (mental and manual).
Although this is not the place to take up the issue of how, historically, people came to acquire the capital that now confers the power to exploit on some people, from the Nigerian nay world-wide experience, it is easy to see through the falsity of any claim that typically such endowment “had its origin in abstinence and the consequent buildup of savings”. This is because, all around us we see the massive corrupt enrichment through activities not even remotely linked to savings or abstinence. It is the more sophisticated account of the original accumulation story which Karl Marx raised to the general theoretical rendition that “the preconditions of capitalism are to be found in a brutal system of robbery”.
In the process of capitalist exploitation, at the intellectual level, neoclassical economists carry an undeniable guilt as exposed by Michael Perelman-Professor of Economics at California State University at Chico -in a review of his 360-page book, “The Invisible Handcuffs of Capitalism: How Market Tyranny Stifles the Economy by Stunting Workers”, published in the January 2011 edition of Monthly Review-as conveyed in the indicting submission that: While a science must be rooted in material reality, mainstream economics ignores or distorts the most fundamental aspect of this reality: that the vast majority of people must, out of necessity, labor on behalf of others, transformed into nothing but a means to the end of maximum profits for their employers. The nature of the work we do and the conditions under which we do it profoundly shape our lives. And yet, both of these factors are peripheral to mainstream economics.
I come in peace, please.
Comments powered by CComment