I think that’s because most of us have no technical training. For us (non-technical :-) leftists), it *is* a moral issue. Far be it from me to defend Zizek, but I think you should consider the qualifier “successfully” in his sentence:
> His wealth has nothing to do with Microsoft producing good software at lower prices than its competitors, or ‘exploiting’ its workers more successfully (Microsoft pays its intellectual workers a relatively high salary).
If I understand the technical term correctly, and I probably don’t, exploitation occurs when the value created by the labour is greater than the price paid to the labourer. Assuming that’s correct, one can, it seems to me, technically "measure" “how much” exploitation occurs and how successful a capitalist is in such exploitation. The more the producers of the gidget are able to extract in wages, the less successful the company is at exploitation.
No?
—ravi
>
> <> // ravi: " 'exploiting' its workers more successfully (Microsoft pays
> <> its
> <> intellectual workers a relatively high salary). . .
> <>
> <> Non sequitur. Your argument may be correct, but this is no support for
> <> it.
> <>
> <> It is arguable that the 5 highest paid athletes in Baseball & Football
> <> are
> <> the most exploited workers in the u.s.. Exploitation is a technical
> <> not a
> <> moral question.
> <>
> <> This is a sloppy expression of the point. Better expressed it might
> <> well fit
> <> into shag's discussion of theoryl
> <>
> <> Carrol
> <>
> <> Carrol
> <>
> <> ___________________________________
> <> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> <>
>
>
> --
> http://cleandraws.com
> Wear Clean Draws
> ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk