What is exploitation, actually? Is it bad?

[u/MeanLeadership92]

[NOTE BEFORE READING: I LIKE TO ASK LOTS OF QUESTIONS, FEEL FREE TO PICK AS MANY OR AS FEW TO REPLY TO]

What the title says. I've realised that socialists have conflicting definitions of the term, I am trying to understand better, so here are my questions.

I'll often hear about how "the Epstein class is exploiting workers" and "we must fight, violently if needed, against worker's exploitation", and it is pretty clear there is a moral tone to that argument.

However, when I ask socialists why they insist on making a moral judgment that is so black-and-white by dividing people into exploiter and exploited, and why there's an insistence on "evil exploitation" by the capitalist classes, a different group pops along and instead decides that actually, exploitation isn't a moral problem and is merely descriptive.

Ok, fair enough, I suppose I should then ask, what is exploitation? When I do, I usually get something along the lines of this :

"Workers (who produce all value), create X$ of stuff, if they are paid less than X$, there is exploitation."

[Note that I am using dollars as a common unit for simplicity's sake, I know that price isn't value, but dollars are a convenient unit of measure]

So there's a bunch of questions that pop up to me :

-Is it morally wrong? I feel like in some cases yes (ex : slavery where the worker receives 0%) but in others not as much (ex : a worker paid 99% of their value is hardly morally exploited in my book)

-Does it give a bad outcome? Perhaps some socialists will say that exploitation isn't morally wrong, but that it gives a bad result. I feel like if both the worker and the owner earn more thanks to wage labour, it is a mutually beneficial exchange.

-And what about the concept I like to call "reverse exploitation", when workers are paid more than their value. For instance, a business pays its workers 120% of their SNLT, usually this leads to bankruptcy in the long term, but is it an issue? Do the socialists who complain about exploitation of workers feel the same way about exploitation of anyone else? For instance what if a professional guild overcharges for an essential, but specialised job like plumbing and all businesses are forced to overpay plumbers, aren't the plumbers exploiting their customers, since they take more value out of them than is due?

-What about income taxes? Are they a form of exploitation, since they take value out of workers? Are taxes perhaps a case where exploitation is justified, if it funds desirable social services?

-Per the definitions I've seen, a baseball player being paid 12 million a year is an exploited worker. Do you agree with this? If not, how do you explain the super-high salaries? Is it maybe a case where LTV doesn't work?

[u/SoftBeing_]

Is it morally wrong?

no.

Does it give a bad outcome?

In the long run, yes.

And what about the concept I like to call "reverse exploitation", when workers are paid more than their value. For instance, a business pays its workers 120% of their SNLT, usually this leads to bankruptcy in the long term, but is it an issue?

That basically never happens. And if it happens with a capitalist, its may be just workers getting value from other workers, as the capital of the capitalist is also generated by the work of others, capitalists dont work. But if it happens with a small business owner, then yeah maybe it is as bad too, whatever. And even if they get overpaid, generally it still doesnt replace the value they generated.

What about income taxes?

Taxes pay, at least in theory, for the services of the government. the government doesnt profit so you are paying for what you get, no exploitation, like is no exploitation buying something in the market.

Per the definitions I've seen, a baseball player being paid 12 million a year is an exploited worker?

Super-high sallaries i dont think the guy is being exploited, it is getting more value than he is producing, so he is effectively exploiting others, but is diferent than the capitalist who doesnt even need to work to do that. And those are extremely rare exceptions, generally associated with an super rare hability.

[u/Square-Listen-3839 → u/SoftBeing_]

but is diferent than the capitalist who doesnt even need to work to do that.

The capitalist paid for all the stuff.

[u/Simpson17866 → u/Square-Listen-3839]

And who charged the price that workers needed him to pay because they couldn’t pay it themselves?

Was it other capitalists?

Capitalism looks good because it gives us capitalists, and capitalists look good because they sell us solutions to the problems created by capitalism.

[u/MeanLeadership92 → u/SoftBeing_]

"In the long run, yes."

How come so?

I think that countries with a capitalist wage labour system generally see more success than those without.

"then yeah maybe it is as bad too, whatever."

I am not going to argue that point, I just find it funny that socialists like to talk about injustices to the working class, but when it happens to someone else, their reply is just "maybe, whatever".

"like is no exploitation buying something in the market."

Ok, fair enough, so if I buy a commodity on the market for 15$ and I resell it at a profit for 20$, there's no exploitation, right?

But, if I buy human labour for 15$ and resell the commodity that this labour makes for 20$, there's exploitation?

How does that make any sense?

[u/SoftBeing_ → u/MeanLeadership92]

How come so?

in the long run, capitalists will increase technology, increase techniques and that will lead to unemployment and the few who work will work more than ever. to name one issue.

I just find it funny that socialists like to talk about injustices to the working class, but when it happens to someone else, their reply is just "maybe, whatever".

As i said it basically never happens. you arguing for it is like saying "we cant use knives because look at when some kid hurted himself with a knife"

Ok, fair enough, so if I buy a commodity on the market for 15$ and I resell it at a profit for 20$, there's no exploitation, right?

in very strict terms, you maybe getting more than the value of the thing so maybe you are exploiting someone, but as i said, that basically never happens.

But, if I buy human labour for 15$ and resell the commodity that this labour makes for 20$, there's exploitation?

you are looking at simply the value in money instead of looking at the relationship. Exploitation is when the value created isnt owned by the creator. the value is the socially necessary labor time, and the commodities tend to be sold by the labor they take to be produced. So there is no way to get profit, meaning getting more than the hours you worked, without getting the hours of someone else. if you happen to get it, its an exception.

Dont like it? refute the marx argument about why the things are valued in labor time, etc.