Marx' Exploitation

[source]

I've been trying to find good arguments against Marx' exploitation. I'm seing it a lot lately, being used as an argument against capitalism.

I can see that what's wrong with this "concept" of exploitation. It completely distorts the very essence of what capitalism is. I have some arguments against it, but since I can't exactly pinpoint the fundamental fallacy of exploitation, they are only superficial. Can someone please point me to where this is discussed objectively or explain it here, so that I could see it for what it truly is and root out my problems with it?

[Inspector]

You need to define the argument in terms of: is anyone initiating force?

The concept that a person's rights can be violated without the initiation of force (i.e. "exploitation") is a false one. That's the starting point that you need to establish.

If no force is being initiated, then what you have is a voluntary agreement. Marxists, of course, hate freedom and hate the idea that people might agree voluntarily to do things for other people. They would rather that all human relationships involve the use of coercive violence.

There, that's a start.

[BlackSabbath]

Marx's theory of exploitation should be dismissed, out of hand, as an inversion of both reality and the meaning of words.

It is also a rationalization. If free trade is 'exploitation' then that allows commies to fantasise about taxing, looting, smashing, raping, pilaging and killing.

Pure and simple.

[Inspector]

Pretty much as soon as they claim that something which is not an initiation of force is a crime which can and should be met with force, you pretty much have them at the point where you say, "that's monstrous."

I wouldn't waste much time with them if they openly say that.

The usual response at that point is that "Well, the factory owner is using force to defend himself." Hey, if they can equivocate the differance between economic and political power, why wouldn't you expect them to equivocate the differance between an initiation of force and the defensive use of force.

Here's a standard response I give to THAT particular equivocation:

You are saying that because the police prevent OTHER PEOPLE from initiating force AGAINST the factory owner, that you consider THAT to be an initiation of force?

So by your logic, because your daughter is "perpetuating" a system in which the police prevent rape, SHE is "using force" to "deprive" everyone of her body (which they have a "right" to) and so everyone is justified in gang-raping her. Under your reasoning, they aren't initiating force against her, they are acting in self-defense against the "system" which (somehow) "initiated" force against them. (even though the system uses NO force until they attempt to rape)

Do you see the hole in your logic? Just as nobody has the right to your daughter's body, so nobody has a right to the factory owner's factory. "Need" is not a claim on the life of another human being. Those rapists "need" sex, but that does not give them any RIGHT to it.

Rights are negatives that explain what you CANNOT do to your fellow humans. (refrain from using force, provided that force is not used against you) They are not guarantees to goods (a "right" to a minimum wage).

If they were the latter, WHO would provide the minimum wage? That person would no longer have the right to be free from force because force would HAVE to be used to MAKE him provide the minimum wage.

Your system requires SLAVES in order to function. My system is one of VOLUNTARY contract.

Like BlackSabbath says, these people are completely looney tunes, so the easiest solution is to simply walk away.

[y_feldblum]

Not only do Marxists hate the idea of freedom and volition and individualism, many refuse to recognize it where it exists. Freedom is just another form of slavery - wage slavery. Volition is just another form of unconsciousness - social mind. Individualism is just another form of group existence.

Indeed, this is a rationalization. By refusing to recognize that freedom is possible, the Marxist reduces the argument to the preferred form of slavery. By refusing to recognize that volition is exists, the Marxist reduces the argument to the preferred form of subjectivism. Etc. The Marxist is entirely justified in thrusting his method of slavery and his kind of subjectivism and his kind of nonexistence on the rest of the world, because he has defined out of existence every better alternative.

Marxism - and the idea of exploitation - rejects even a rational metaphysics/epistemology down to its axioms.

[Capitalism Forever]

I have some arguments against it, but since I can't exactly pinpoint the fundamental fallacy of exploitation, they are only superficial.

I have an orange; you have a banana. I prefer bananas to oranges, so I ask you if you would like to trade your banana for my orange. You happen to prefer oranges, so you agree, and we proceed to exchange our goods. According to Marxism, I have "exploited" you: I have gained a value from trading with you.

The fundamental fallacy here is the unspoken premise that any transaction with another person is immoral if I benefit from it. The Marxist doesn't care whether the other party benefits or is harmed; he doesn't care if the transaction was mutually agreed-upon or unilaterally forced by one party on the other. All he sees is that somebody has gained a value--and he hates it when that happens.

[Patrick N.]

The fundamental problem with the Marxist anti-concept of "exploitation" is this:

Marxists deny that man has a mind. As materialists, they see human beings as pieces of meat with no free will and no minds of their own. Because of this, they think that "labor creates all wealth." They miss the point that without the mind nothing else is possible.

[Praxus]

Here is some good reading on the subject (note this adresses the practicle issues, not the moral ones)...

http://www.mises.org/efandi/ch25.asp

http://www.mises.org/efandi/ch26.asp

[knast]

I've been trying to find good arguments against Marx' exploitation. I'm seing it a lot lately, being used as an argument against capitalism.

I can see that what's wrong with this "concept" of exploitation. It completely distorts the very essence of what capitalism is. I have some arguments against it, but since I can't exactly pinpoint the fundamental fallacy of exploitation, they are only superficial. Can someone please point me to where this is discussed objectively or explain it here, so that I could see it for what it truly is and root out my problems with it?

The without any doubt BEST answer to Marx's exploitation theory is given by the Objectivist economist Dr George Reisman in his book "Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics". If you don't care to buy it, although you really should, you can always download the entire book from Dr Reismans site: http://www.capitalism.net/Capitalism/CAPIT...%20Internet.pdf

Dr Reisman starts to deal with the Marxist exploitation theory in chapter 11.

[Tom Rexton]

I've been trying to find good arguments against Marx' exploitation. I'm seing it a lot lately, being used as an argument against capitalism.

I can see that what's wrong with this "concept" of exploitation. It completely distorts the very essence of what capitalism is. I have some arguments against it, but since I can't exactly pinpoint the fundamental fallacy of exploitation, they are only superficial. Can someone please point me to where this is discussed objectively or explain it here, so that I could see it for what it truly is and root out my problems with it?

Look into what people refer to when they use the word "exploitation". They usually point out as examples people in poor countries working long hours for low wages under poor conditions. They also usually point out working hours, wages, and working conditions during the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The fallacy in those, of course, is the invalid standard of what constitutes the "proper" length of work, height of wage, and conditions of work. They deem "proper" NOT what some one VOLUNTARILY accepts, but what THEY FEEL the empoyer should provided (and the government should enFORCE), REGARDLESS of market value, productivity, skills, employment costs, etc...The pernicious theory that wages, working hours and working conditions are determined arbitrarily by employers who wield absolute power over wage-earners has been refuted so many times by such sound economic theories that it is not worth it to really discuss it here or even with a communist/marxist.

As has already been pointed out, the key distinction to make is on the USE OF FORCE. The intiation of force for the purpose of gaining a value IS exploitation. Voluntary exchange, agreement, and contracts are NOT.

There was a quote from someone (I've forgotten) who gave a tongue-in-cheek definition of exploitation:

"when someone else voluntarily accepts employment terms that I would not accept."

[source]

Thanks for all the replies.

My primary reason for asking this question wasn't to debate the issue with a Marxist. It's just that I've been seing this anti-concept used against Capitalism so many times lately - in newspapers, on TV, in movies, heard it from others... and amidst all that, I could only tell myself that they're all wrong and give myself only the peripheral (less important) reasons why they're wrong. I could never explain this fully.

It will take me a while to go through all your replies. I've read them and some of them I already knew. Thanks for the references.

As for not discussing this issue with a Marxist:

I've heard this argument (of exploitation) given against capitalism by people who are on a fundamental level, not Marxists and who in fact love freedom, they just don't understand what they are saying. They accepted exploitation as real, something which can and is being done, and never checked it, and as a result they have this irrational fear of conducting business.

The most destructive instance of this "belief" in the mere possibility and existence of exploitation comes when it is heard on the news how people are being fired in masses. This happens a lot in Croatia, and the reasons they give us on the news is improper management. (And you ask yourself - could a company have risen to being an international company under "improper management"?) Anyway, the implicit statement of such news is this: "The managers suddenly came, collected all the money from the company and fired a bunch of workers after not paying them salaries for the previous several months." And everyone believes it because they think that's what employers do, just that at this moment they became especially "greedy" (in traditional terms) and took everything.

I just hope that after studying your replies, I should be able to tackle these issues better and on grounds which are relevant, not peripheral.