>To get a concrete grasp of this, you must understand not only what
exploitation means (all other things equal, a person is exploited if they
must labor more than the average amount people work in the economy) but
also the relationship between inegalitarian distribution of resources
("capital") and the potential for exploitation.<
Instead of working more than average (which suggests that all those above the median aren't exploited), there's got to be a better definition. First, exploitation is a society-wide phenomenon (the capitalists exploit the working class as a whole), obviously with implications for individuals. The sign that exploitation occurs is that the average real wage rate (averaging across society) is below the average product of labor. Though it doesn't work exactly, for the individual the sign of exploitation is that the worker's wage is below the average product of his or her labor. (It doesn't work exactly, because some labor is purely redistributive.)
>Unequal distribution of resources allows some to hire others to work for
them, to produce profit for them. This is exploitation, and it is also the
very definition of a working capitalist economy. Note that exploitation
need not mean horrific working conditions, etc. --- it is something quite
specific, and quite simple...<
It's more than unequal distribution of resources (as Gary Dymski and I successfully argued against John Roemer in ECONOMICS & PHILOSOPHY a few years ago). Among other things, capital (both money-capital and means of production) must be scarce and the capitalists must control production and accumulation.
If I were talking to a worker about exploitation (rather than writing e-mail on a Sunday morning), I would start with the unequal distribution of income -- an emphasize how it gives some people (a small minority) great power over other human beings and that power isn't just used by the state.
I would also emphasize the authoritarian relationship at almost all jobs "created" by capitalists. And the lack of control over their lives that most workers have (unlike profs like myself, who has a lot of options for leaving the office to do errands, not to mention tenure, etc.)
I think that exploitation can be brought up in this context. But we should be careful: the word has a moralistic flavor. Often it is used to refer to what Marxists term "super-exploitation" (roughly, being exploited more than is usual).
I think it's good to encourage utopian thinking, too: think about how it would work if you guys, instead of the boss, controlled the company.
Jim Devine jdevine at popmail.lmu.edu & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Departments/ECON/jdevine.html