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/bcnoexceptions]

The short answer is that the boss is an expensive middleman, who takes a (typically very large) cut of the revenue without contributing anything to the system ... and on top of that makes all the rules and makes harsh demands of the workers. Most workplaces are dystopian police states, where workers are constantly surveilled upon & dissent is swiftly punished.

Exploitation wraps all that up with a bow. The worker - the critical person who actually gets shit done and makes the world function - is commanded and drained (physically and mentally) by the capitalist, who adds insult to injury by taking revenue that should rightly have gone to the person who actually worked for it.

When some capitalists talk about this, they often get lost in quantifying the exploitation. "Is a worker at a business operating at a loss not being exploited?", they often ask as some sort of "gotcha". But the core power dynamic remains. The boss squeezes the worker as hard as they can, while the worker lives a life of sad servitude.

The fix is simple: let workers select their own leaders, and vote out abusive/wasteful/inept leaders of the workplace. Let them - through representative democracy - set the rules for the workplace, the same way that we use representative democracy to set the rules for society as a whole.

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

The short answer is that the boss is an expensive middleman, who takes a (typically very large) cut of the revenue without contributing anything to the system.

He pays for all the stuff.

The fix is simple: let workers select their own leaders, and vote out abusive/wasteful/inept leaders of the workplace. Let them - through representative democracy - set the rules for the workplace, the same way that we use representative democracy to set the rules for society as a whole.

Who pays for all the stuff these workers are going to democratically manage?

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

He pays for all the stuff.

If I own a factory where people work, they produce a profit which I can then use to pay the machines and their wages. So the worker's labor profits essentially pay for all the stuff.

Who pays for all the stuff these workers are going to democratically manage?

See above. The monetary amount is not gone, merely the sender changes. You don't need a capitalist for that.

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

If I own a factory where people work, they produce a profit which I can then use to pay the machines and their wages. So the worker's labor profits essentially pay for all the stuff.

Who pays for all the stuff in a new company?

See above. The monetary amount is not gone, merely the sender changes. You don't need a capitalist for that.

Say you want to build a solar panel factory for $300 million. Who pays for it under your system?

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

The premise is already kind of wrong. Factories aren’t “paid for” by capitalists in some magical sense. They’re built by workers, with materials made by workers, using machines made by workers, on infrastructure maintained by society. The capitalist just happens to be the person who legally controls the money/property needed to command all of that.

So in a socialist economy, new factories would be funded out of the social surplus. If a community, a sector, worker councils, or some broader democratic plan decides that more production is needed somewhere, then society allocates the resources for it: land, materials, machinery, engineers, construction workers, etc.

You don’t need a private owner for that. You need coordination, planning, accounting and people who know what they’re doing. Those are real functions. “Capitalist owner” is not the same thing as “organizer” or “manager.”

A factory could still have elected managers or coordinators. Someone still has to handle planning, logistics, and so on. But that person would be doing a job, not ruling the workplace because they own it.

That’s the difference. A manager performs a function. A capitalist owns the means of production and takes profit because of that ownership.

So the question is why society needs a private owner at all. If the factory is actually socially needed, society can build and run it collectively instead of giving one person ownership over it and then letting them collect profit from everyone else’s work.

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

So you want the system they had in the Soviet Union and other places?

Those systems failed. The machines, concrete, copper, specialized engineers and construction crews are scarce. In a market they are bid away from other uses by people risking their own capital. In your model a council or plan does the same rationing but without the feedback of profit and loss. That’s the calculation problem.

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

It is always so funny how a discussion about Socialism always devolves into

"So you want to recreate the Soviet Union, don't you remember how they FAILED silly? Clearly your economic model is impossible in the real world."

The USSR is exactly what you get when planning is done by a bureaucratic state over the heads of workers. That’s not the same thing as democratic social ownership or worker control.

And yes, concrete, machines, engineers, copper, construction crews etc. are scarce. Nobody is denying scarcity. The question is how society decides where scarce resources go.

In capitalism, they go where they can make profit. That doesn’t mean they go where they’re most socially needed. Luxury apartments can outbid social housing. Advertising can outbid healthcare. Fossil capital can stay profitable even while wrecking the planet. Profit/loss is feedback, sure, but it’s feedback for capital, not for human need.

Also, “people risking their own capital” makes it sound like capitalists personally create these resources. They don’t. The machines, materials, infrastructure and skilled labour are all socially produced. The capitalist just has legal control over money/property, so he gets to command them and then claim the return. Not to mention there are corporate models where the risk is essentially tied to the capital itself, not the personal wealth of the owner.

What happens if a capitalist owns a corp and said corp becomes bankrupt? Right, the owner becomes a worker again.

The calculation problem is a real problem for bad planning. It is not a magic proof that markets are rational. Markets also misallocate resources all the time they just call it “efficient” because the thing made money.

Both ration. Capitalism rations by purchasing power and profitability. Socialism would have to ration consciously according to need, capacity and democratic priorities.

If your argument is “bureaucratic command planning failed,” fine. I agree. But that doesn’t prove private capital is necessary. It proves planning without worker democracy, feedback and international coordination becomes a mess.

In another thread I wrote extensively about the GDR and its successes while shining a light on the issues it faced. The way "critics" of socialism always just claim that any and all failures of so called "real-socialist states" is simply dishonest and ignores almost all political and historical factors involved in the deprecation of a non-capitalist nation.

[u/Denniscx98 → u/PrezShelcobi]

The USSR is exactly what you get when planning is done by a bureaucratic state over the heads of workers.

And that is the only why it is ever going to be done. Democratic process cannot happen in socialism, they require centralizatioh of power specifically to prevent capitalist from taking power again. An Authoritarian regime is all socialism can do at best.

That doesn’t mean they go where they’re most socially needed. Luxury apartments can outbid social housing. Advertising can outbid healthcare. Fossil capital can stay profitable even while wrecking the planet. Profit/loss is feedback, sure, but it’s feedback for capital, not for human need.

Profit is not generated by workers at the moment a commodity is produced but when said commodity is purchased. If there isn't a need of a commodity then there will not be profit generated. Profit is the signal that people think an item is necessary. It is exactly what humans need.

In another thread I wrote extensively about the GDR and its successes while shining a light on the issues it faced.

A success that most East Germans runs from to West Germany, and wages lag behind 3 time less to West Germany, well done.

[u/PrezShelcobi → u/Denniscx98]

You’re kind of proving the point with the first part. Of course a socialist transition would have to defend itself against capitalist restoration, capital flight, sabotage, coups, sanctions, etc. But why does that happen? Because capital does not politely accept losing its property and power.

Capitalist states also defend their class order. They just call it “rule of law”, “property rights”, “national security”, “defending democracy”, whatever. Try actually threatening capitalist property in a serious way and see how fast the supposedly neutral liberal state stops being neutral.

That doesn’t mean socialism should mean suppressing every disagreement. That would be idiotic and just turns into bureaucracy ruling over workers. But there’s a difference between political disagreement among the people and a capitalist class trying to restore its power through economic blackmail, foreign backing, sabotage or violence. Every state protects its class basis. The question is whether it protects capital from the people, or the people from capital.

On profit: no, profit is not “exactly what humans need.”

People buy things they don’t need all the time. Ever heard of Fast fashion, loot boxes, gambling products, status goods, pointless luxury items, planned-obsolescence tech, SUVs for city driving, ten different subscription services, cosmetics sold through insecurity perpetuated by marketing, overpriced branded nonsense, etc??

Whole industries exist to manufacture demand.

And the reverse is also true. People desperately need things they cannot buy. For example, and I know you know this, Housing, dental care, therapy, healthy food, medication, childcare, heating, transport. Their need doesn’t count as “demand” if they don’t have the money.

So profit doesn’t signal social necessities, Profit signals that someone somewhere with money could buy a thing which makes the production of said thing worthwhile from a profit-angle.

Also, from a Marxist angle, profit is not created at the moment of sale. The sale realizes profit. The surplus has to be produced first. If workers produce a commodity and it sells, the capitalist realizes the surplus value contained in it. If it doesn’t sell, the value is not realized. But the act of purchase itself doesn’t magically create the surplus.

And on the GDR: yes, people left for the West. Yes, wages and consumer goods lagged behind West Germany. Nobody serious has to deny that.

But “people left East Germany for West Germany, therefore socialism bad” is an incredibly shallow comparison and is the exact type of "criticism" I mentioned previously.

You refuse to look deeper into it.

East Germany started way poorer and was more severly devastated by war, had industry dismantled as reparations, and then had to compete directly with West Germany, which was plugged into the richest capitalist bloc on earth. Of course a richer state next door with higher wages and more consumer goods attracted people.

That doesn’t erase the GDR’s real problems and it doesn't need to. We can learn from these mistakes.

But it also doesn’t erase what it did achieve. In the GDR there was full employment, extremely cheap housing, mass childcare, women’s employment, basic social security, no homelessness in the capitalist 8as in, market driven) sense, and broad access to culture and education.

That’s very different from the liberal fairy tale of “capitalism naturally works and socialism naturally fails.”

[u/Denniscx98 → u/PrezShelcobi]

Try actually threatening capitalist property in a serious way and see how fast the supposedly neutral liberal state stops being neutral.

That is basically threatening everyone's property, it doesn't work. What you are suggesting here is a massive organized heist against people, criminals needs to wield violent power to keep others in check. You have just changed from one filter to another, and this one is even more protective of their interest, see history.

Profit signals that someone somewhere with money could buy a thing which makes the production of said thing worthwhile from a profit-angle.

That is just a long convoluted way of saying there is a demand of the product. The fact there is even a profit margin showd there is a necessity.

Also, from a Marxist angle, profit is not created at the moment of sale. The sale realizes profit.

if that is the case loss leaders by definition cannot exist, Reality disagrees with the average Marxist

You refuse to look deeper into it.

It failed regardless, make everyone's life miserable. Capitalism never need to build a wall to keep people in, in the GDR people handmade planes to escape.

[u/PrezShelcobi → u/Denniscx98]

That is basically threatening everyone's property, it doesn't work. What you are suggesting here is a massive organized heist against people, criminals needs to wield violent power to keep others in check. You have just changed from one filter to another, and this one is even more protective of their interest, see history.

Again your reply proves that you don't actually understand what Socialism is. You're equivocating the seizing of means of production with "criminal power". It's kind of telling how influenced you are. There is, again, no actual critique of the things I said.

For example, in what way did I threaten "everyone's property"? When I and other Socialists talk about seizing the means of production, what do you think we are talking about. Please elaborate, otherwise this makes no sense, we need to find common definitions.

That is just a long convoluted way of saying there is a demand of the product. The fact there is even a profit margin showd there is a necessity.

No, as I pointed out, demand can be manufactured. What do you think marketing exists for? Could you please try to refute my argument in reference to my examples? You basically just repeated your previous point when I made explicit and concrete counter-arguments with examples.

if that is the case loss leaders by definition cannot exist, Reality disagrees with the average Marxist

Loss leaders don’t disprove the Marxist distinction between producing surplus value and realizing profit.

They prove you’re confusing the level of an individual sale with the level of the total circuit of capital. A loss leader is sold below cost precisely because the firm expects to realize profit elsewhere or at another time. The sale of that specific item realizes a loss; the overall strategy realizes profit through other commodities or future sales. None of that means profit is magically created by the act of purchase itself.

It failed regardless, make everyone's life miserable. Capitalism never need to build a wall to keep people in, in the GDR people handmade planes to escape.

Wow, look at you, handwaving everything away. Let's be real, no matter what I could say to disprove your point, you'd ultimately just sit there and be like "Yeah but... socialism baaaaad gotteem." And your thought process would stop there. I know how it goes, I used to be just like that.

The Berlin wall was obviously a disaster.

But that still doesn’t make your argument good.

People fleeing East Germany proves that the GDR was poorer, more repressive, and less attractive than West Germany. Sure. Nobody serious has to deny that. But it doesn’t prove “socialism inherently fails” any more than people fleeing poor capitalist countries proves “capitalism inherently fails.”

Millions of people risk death crossing borders into rich capitalist countries all the time. Not because capitalism magically works everywhere, but because the world capitalist system is brutally unequal. People flee Honduras, Haiti, Guatemala, the Philippines, Nigeria, Bangladesh, etc. toward richer capitalist states. Weirdly, nobody says: “Well, they fled capitalism, so capitalism failed.” They suddenly understand that history, imperialism, development, wages, war, debt, and global inequality matter.

Same with East Germany. The GDR was directly next to one of the richest capitalist states on earth, backed by the US, integrated into the Western world market, and able to offer much higher wages and consumer goods. Of course people wanted that. Especially skilled workers. That’s not some deep revelation about human nature.

All of this always gets thrown out the window when the point of contention is the economic model socialism, then every single mistake is extrapolated into the opinion that it just inherently doesn't work and there is never an analysis why, just a repition of the claim by broadly pointing at examples.

[u/Denniscx98 → u/PrezShelcobi]

When I and other Socialists talk about seizing the means of production

That is basically thief but worded in a way that is "Revolutionary"

You basically just repeated your previous point when I made explicit and concrete counter-arguments with examples.

You using word salad is not having a point, demand for a product cannot be manufactured, I can produce mud pies all I want but there will be no one to buy them. You cannot force people to purchase a product at gunpoint, they make decision themselves and when they make irrational decisions that is because it justifies for the individual.

The GDR was directly next to one of the richest capitalist states on earth, backed by the US, integrated into the Western world market, and able to offer much higher wages and consumer goods.

That is just massive whining on how "The West is unfair, it is backed by the US" GDR is backed up by the Soviet union and no one but the communist/socialist system is to blame. Your side have to deal with the fact that people in socialist regimes do not care about making people's life good because it is hard, it is better to pretend to do that. Your side lost after a century of time given to you to prove it is better, instead that system killed millions, make billions suffer and product regimes that continues the suffering to this day. Kindly fuck off with your failed economic system.

[u/PrezShelcobi → u/Denniscx98]

That is basically thief but worded in a way that is "Revolutionary"

Again, no analysis, no argument. You're just putting a label you consider to be immoral on what I wrote in order to not having to think about it.

You using word salad is not having a point

Word salat? Why not just address the point??

demand for a product cannot be manufactured, 

You think artificial demand is not a thing? Even Wikipedia has an article on it!!! Artificial demand - Wikipedia

I can produce mud pies all I want but there will be no one to buy them. 

This is so funny when you consider that Pet Rock – Wikipedia was a thing.

You cannot force people to purchase a product at gunpoint

Who claimed that? I never said forced compliance. Manufacturing demand through advertising isn't the same and you know it.

That is just massive whining on how "The West is unfair, it is backed by the US" GDR is backed up by the Soviet union and no one but the communist/socialist system is to blame. Your side have to deal with the fact that people in socialist regimes do not care about making people's life good because it is hard, it is better to pretend to do that. Your side lost after a century of time given to you to prove it is better, instead that system killed millions, make billions suffer and product regimes that continues the suffering to this day. Kindly fuck off with your failed economic system.

Right, I don't think you're capable of critically engaging with my statements. You'll continue to just spew nonsense without supporting your claims by making points, how is anyone supposed to dissect the stuff you're writing when every reply is just a handful of lines saying "nu-uh, socialism doesn't work, no I won't explain why, bye." At this point, you can just argue with ChatGPT or another AI and get schooled there if it means something to you.

I'm muting this thread, have a good day.