Talking more about how we in the imperial core are exploited, rather than how imperialism exploits other countries’ resources, labour etc. I’m trying to find a satisfying explanation for why “well-paid” workers are also exploited.
From my understanding of Marx, exploitation happens in capitalism by the worker producing more value than what they are paid. This is evident by the profit these companies make, as it wouldn’t exist if their workers were not exploited. But I find it awkward to try to get this across to people not well versed in theory. You have job types like office workers that don’t really produce anything and only contribute to the companies bottom line indirectly. I get that theres unproductive and productive labor, but this is also alot to explain to someone who is not deep into economics.
This also got me thinking that exploitation is broader than just underpaying workers. There’s also psychological and physical abuse at the workplace that I feel has some connection to exploitation. The fact that the employer can threaten you with firing, or cutting some benefit also seems like exploitation to me.
Sorry just returning to post another distinct thought.
It is a mistake to analyze exploitation on an individual basis. You already mentioned unproductive labor, for example, a cashier or a security guard who does not directly add value to the products for sale. These workers are nevertheless necessary for the continued production of surplus value. (Recall Marx: “Capitalist production is not merely the production of commodities, it is essentially the production of surplus-value.”)
If one analyzes the individual worker within the imperial core and finds that they do not individually produce surplus-value, this says nothing about their individual relations of production and therefore nothing about their class. If the worker was not necessary for the continued production of surplus-value, they would not be hired. The exact mechanism of this necessity could be extremely roundabout, for example, by “paying off” the masses of the imperial core so that they don’t protest against the exploitation of the imperial periphery. But in any case, there is no requirement — even within the confines of Capital vol 1, let alone later Marxist theory — that an exploited worker is individually productive of surplus value. They can be unproductive and exploited.
It’s interesting where to draw the line at for who is getting exploited and who is the exploiter. Is it only the workers at the bottom of the hierarchal structure? The middle managers as well? I suppose all who are not the owners of the means of production are exploited.
Good quote to remember when libs/conservatives expose their understanding of socialism to be when you don’t produce commodities. I would like to say to them socialism and capitalism can both produce commodities, but capitalism requires there to be a surplus value aka profit
In capital volume 1, Marx frequently refers to individuals in his narrative, but it is always after first assuming that an individual is an average, representative member of their class. E.g. many of the examples assume that a laborer works with average skill and intensity.
Later discussions, such as productive and unproductive labor, the assumption of homogeneous value production on an individual basis is questioned. How does the analysis change if some workers do not produce value, but nevertheless receive wages? And the analysis continues forward dialectically as usual, re-treading the same ground with a different set of assumptions to see how things appear to change, before reflecting on those changes relative to the first perspective and integrating the new perspective into the theory.
The important takeaway is that, as a class, the proletariat are collectively exploited and that, as a class, the bourgeoisie are collectively exploiting. This doesn’t mean every single labor must mechanically produces a linear amount of surplus-value each hour in order to “count” as exploited. Nor does it mean that every single capitalist must receive an amount of surplus-value each hour — or even turn a profit! The theory is oriented toward the aggregate of society, the understanding of class dynamics as a whole and the large-scale structure of society’s relations of production.
It is already a well established part of Marxist theory that there are intermediate classes such as the petty bourgeoisie. However Marx and Engels insisted that the defining struggle is between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and that the proletariat is the class with revolutionary potential. (It should be noted that, in the context of China, Mao included also the lumpenproletariat as a revolutionary class.) The intermediate classes are typically ephemeral and historically unimportant relative to this larger struggle.