[WS:] Could you explain what it means in empirical terms? That is, what empirically observable qualities decide whether a person is exploited or not?
I can understand its meaning for Marx - it was a metaphor for the lack ownership of the means of production, which for him was the explanation of poor living conditions of the working class. But it was not a good explanation after all - as it turned out that people who do not own means of production (corporate exec in capitalism and socialism alike) nonetheless receive compensation that grossly exceeds the value of their contribution to the production process. So if neither living conditions nor ownership matter - the concept of exploitation loses any empirical meaning, no? It retains it emotive/expressive appeal - but that puts it among religious concept that also have emotive and expressive qualities but lack empirical meaning.
Wojtek
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 4:12 PM, brad <babscritique at gmail.com> wrote:
> Over 80% of the population, including people who earn rather huge
> salaries, are exploited. Joanna, for example, is probably much more
> exploited than are Walmart clerks. To focus on Exploitation as "what
> is wrong" is to splinter the working class, and it leads to bad
> politics.
>
> Carrol
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Exploitation has nothing to do with how much you make. It also has
> nothing to do with particular working conditions. We are exploited
> because we are alienated from the products of our labor. That doesn't
> splinter the working class, it constitutes it. If you are throwing
> exploitation out the window then what is left of your left politics,
> Carrol?
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>