> In other words there are not two relationships between the worker
> and the
> capitalist, one of which might be just and the other unjust, but one
> relationship, the wage relationship, which is the unjust one of the
> extortion of unrequited labour -- slavery -- secured by the
> commodification
> of labour-power.
But, according to Marx, "exchange of equal values" is unjust even where there is no "extortion of unrequited labour." This is because the it still violates the true principle of distributive justice: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!”
This is made clear in his Critique of the Gotha Programme discussion of the principle of distribution he claims will prevail in "communist society ... as it emerges from capitalist society."
In this society "the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values," i.e. "the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form."
Consequently, "equal right here is still in principle - bourgeois right" and so "is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation,"
"What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.
“Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.
“Hence, equal right here is still in principle -- bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case.
“In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor.
“But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal."
"These defects are inevitable" because the true principle is not yet practicable. "Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby."
Practicability of the true principle requires "the all-around development of the individual" and, as in Hegel's idea of the development of the "educated man" which it sublates, this in turn requires further "medial discipline of the intellectual and moral powers" (Hegel, Philosophy of History, <http://www.marxists.org/ reference/archive/hegel/works/hi/history4.htm>) "All-around development of the individual" and the increase in productive forces this facilitates makes the true principle practicable.
“But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.
“In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co- operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!” http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm
The true principle derives from what Marx claims is the true idea of the Good Life. The ethical content of this life is relations of mutual recognition (as elaborated, for example, in the account, in the Comments on James Mill, of how we would produce if "we had carried our production as human beings"). These require individuals with the developed powers and other means required for such relations. This in turn requires that the "needs" of every individuals in this sense, i.e. what each needs to live a good life, be met.. Thus a good life for each requires distribution "to each according to his needs."
Ted