serious question though: you can have a hierarchy or, i dunno what you'd call it, range? of exploitation where some are more exploited than others? I'm not wrapping my head around this when you say that the most exploited are college students.
At 05:00 PM 1/25/2012, Shane Mage wrote:
>This whole discussion is totally off base. Employers don't derive
>profit from the exploitation of "their" workers. They derive profit
>from their relative position in the capitalist class as a whole: if
>they are "perfectly competitive" (producers of a standardized
>commodity, by standard methods and with no barriers to speedy entry of
>competitors) in a competitive economy they receive as profit a share
>of the society's aggregate surplus value proportional to their share
>of the total invested capital, whether or not their workers produce
>much or little of that total surplus value; and if (as is most always
>the "real-world" case) there is a monopolistic element to their
>business their share of the aggregate surplus-value is a "rent"
>roughly proportional to the relative strength of their monopoly
>position. Modern monopoly capitalism extracts "rents" in three
>principal ways: "resource" rents from control over natural resources;
>"intellectual property" rents exemplified by an Apple, Disney, or
>Microsoft; and "intermediation" rents of the extortionate type
>exemplified by the whole "financial sector." In none of these cases
>do their profits depend to any significant extent on the exploitation
>of "their" employees: those profits are scarcely anything but a "tax"
>on the productive economy as a whole, a vastly disproportionate share
>of the aggregate surplus value deriving from the exploitation of the
>class of productive workers as a whole. So it is totally and entirely
>wrong to say that "It is arguable that the 5 highest paid athletes in
>Baseball & Football(sic) are the most exploited workers in the US."
>Prince Fielder, Albert Pujols, Alex Rodriguez, Cliff Lee, Ryan Howard
>& co. are not exploited proletarians paid the value-equivalent of the
>cost of production of their labor power: they bargain individually, on
>the basis of their monopoly control over their own enormous talents,
>with other monopolists over the division of the monopoly rents
>generated by the monopoly known as "Major League Baseball." The most
>exploited workers (and here the economic and moral senses of the term
>coincide) in the US, however, are indeed athletes: the tens of
>thousands of young adults laboring not for the wage of a Foxconn
>worker but for nothing at all in the plantation operated by that most
>monstrous combine of monopoly and monopsony, the National Collegiate
>Athletic Association (NCAA).
>
>Shane Mage
>
>"All things are an equal exchange for fire and fire for all things,
>as goods are for gold and gold for goods."
>
>Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr, 90
>
>
>
>
>On Jan 25, 2012, at 3:59 PM, // ravi wrote:
>
>>On Jan 25, 2012, at 3:47 PM, shag carpet bomb wrote:
>>>it was zizek writing that (not ravi), and I noticed it too.
>>>
>>>but isn't that typical of most leftists who see exploitation as a
>>>moral issue, right? hardly anyone actually speaks of it as a
>>>technical issue.
>>
>>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
>>
>>
>>___________________________________
>>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
>
>___________________________________
>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)