>Bill Lear wrote:
>>Capitalism is a system based upon the exploitation of labor. Without
>>the exploitation of labor, the system literally would not, could not,
>>exist. Workers should recognize this by merely uttering the words "I
>>am a worker".
>
>>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.)
>
The notion that workers should somehow receive the full product of their labor was rejected by Marx himself, and for good reason. Part of the social product is used to support the aged, the young, and the infirm. Another portion is used to replace the means of production that have been used up in the production process. Part might be reinvested for future production. This will be true independent of whether exploitation exists.
>>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...<
>
Well, this is closer to an adequate definition. In social terms, exploitation exists when one class lives off the surplus product produced by another (subordinate) class. The subordinate class may or may not be impoverished in some absolute sense. A high standard of living does not negate the fact of exploitation.
In common parlance, exploitation implies being taken advantage of. The heart of Marx's analysis, of course, was to show how the wage relation masked exploitation behind a seemingly fair exchange between employer and employee. But this argument is not obvious to the average worker, even if large numbers are sympathetic to the idea that capitalists have too much power and that the system is unfair for the average person.
I think for most people the origin of profit in the exploitation of labor is by no means obvious.