We both agree that General Motors -- and every other firm for that matter -- know their profits to the cent. We agree that they know full well what they pay to their workers. And we agree that both of these are pecuniary magnitudes that could be computed as a markup ratio. Where we probably disagree is on how this ratio relates to exploitation. In my view, this ratio has nothing to do with the unknowble rate of exploitation, which is based on unknowble "productive contributions" measured in unknowable abstract labor.
Jonathan Nitzan
Michael Dawson wrote:
>So you're saying that General Motors, McDonald's, Intel, etc., have no idea
>what their profit margins are on workplace production?
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
>>On Behalf Of Jonathan Nitzan
>>Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 7:52 PM
>>To: LBO
>>Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] New Imperialism or New Capitalism?
>>
>>I'll try to clarify.
>>
>>To exploit somebody is to take from him/her something that is "theirs."
>>I believe -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- that Marx took from Locke
>>the notion of ownership by virtue of creativity. The worker creates the
>>product, which in turn makes the product "belong" to him/her. Now, in a
>>commodity producing society the capitalist takes from the worker part of
>>what the worker produces. For this reason, Marx says that the worker is
>>being exploited. And, indeed, ownership per se produces nothing, so I
>>think that we can both agree that capitalist owners, as a group,
>>"exploit" the rest of society. Furthermore, in a hypothetical fully
>>capitalist society, where all human activity is carried through the
>>market and paid for in $, we can compute the overall "rate of
>>exploitation." This rate would be the ratio of all capitalist income to
>>all non-capitalist income.
>>
>>But that is it.
>>
>>In order to compute exploitation in ANY SUBSET of that society, we need
>>to know precisely "how much" each worker contributed to the product in
>>question (a contribution measured in units of "abstract labor").
>>Unfortunately, this is knowledge that we neither have, nor can we have
>>(neo-Ricardians have shown just the tip of the iceberg on this issue;
>>the problem goes much deeper into what is creativity and whether or not
>>it could be broken down into quantitative inputs in the first place).
>>Now, unless we can identify individual contributions, we cannot know
>>whether a Microsoft engineer (or a poor peasant, for that matter) is
>>being "exploited," or rather is himself "exploiting" other workers (you
>>cannot exploit capitalist owners, by definition). By the same token, we
>>cannot derive the "profit margin" of any capitalist or group of
>>capitalists (save all capitalists) by "knowing" the extent to which they
>>exploit their workers -- simply since this "extent" is unknown, and
>>indeed unknowable.
>>
>>This is why we say that if the notion of abstract labor goes, so does
>>the notion of exploitation.
>>
>>Clearly, workers usually are far less powerful than capitalists; that is
>>what makes the world we live in run to the tune of capitalists rather
>>than workers. We all know that workers struggle to survive and that in
>>many parts of the world their conditions are not different from Marx's
>>England. Furthermore, in our data on differential accumulation we show
>>that, over the past century, the relative power of capitalists has grown
>>exponentially. But the growth of this relative power cannot be connected
>>to the Marxist concept of "exploitation" (save in the overall sense
>>noted above).
>>
>>Jonathan Nitzan
>>
>>Michael Dawson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>"We can quantify the architecture of power, but we cannot denominate this
>>>architecture in units of 'abstract labour' and definitely not in units of
>>>'surplus value.' And without abstract labour and surplus value, a whole
>>>
>>>
>>host
>>
>>
>>>of derivative concepts - [including] 'exploitation'- lose their
>>>
>>>
>>analytical
>>
>>
>>>meaning."
>>>
>>>Here's my criticism:
>>>
>>>You treat exploitation as a conceptual derivative of Marx's "surplus-
>>>
>>>
>>value"
>>
>>
>>>concept. If that concept's not valid, then exploitation disappears, in
>>>
>>>
>>your
>>
>>
>>>view.
>>>
>>>In the real world, meanwhile, exploitation is a real fact caused by real
>>>power relations. Most people have nothing to sell but their labor-power.
>>>Because of this fact, the minority of wealthy investors is able to pay
>>>
>>>
>>for
>>
>>
>>>labor-power (working time) while retaining ownership of labor's products.
>>>In the real world, this crucial gap is known as the profit margin on
>>>workplace production, and it is the object of immense managerial
>>>
>>>
>>attention,
>>
>>
>>>which is designed to maximize the size of the gap.
>>>
>>>You say this reality, the core of exploitation in Marx's terms, doesn't
>>>exist.
>>>
>>>Really?
>>>
>>>___________________________________
>>>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>___________________________________
>>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>
>>
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
>
>