Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:11, 27 August 2004

From exploit; the act of exploiting. a. To make use of or productively utilize. b. To make use of in an unjust, cruel or selfish manner for one's own advantage. It is the latter which is discussed below.

Exploitation usually does not include simple theft, since the latter is not a persistent economic or social relationship, as when a pimp "exploits" his prostitute. Rather, exploitation involves some persistent aspect of the socioeconomic system, an institution.

This corresponds to one ethical conception of exploitation, that is, the treatment of human beings as mere means to an end or as mere "objects".

Overview

In sociology, "exploitation" refers to the use of people as a resource, with little or no consideration of their well-being.

The focus of this article is the socio-economic phenomenon where people are trade their labor or allegiance to a powerful entity, such as a trade union, state or a corporation.

Different Perspectives on the Reality of Exploitation in the Free Market

There are two primary viewpoints on the reality of exploitation in a free market:

• exploitation exists in a free market
• exploitation does not exist (absent criminal use of force) in a free market.

These different viewpoints are diametrically opposed, and not reconcilable, so much of this article reflects that, with a "on the one hand, some see this as black, but others see it as white" format.

View 1: "Exploitation exists in the free market"

Progressives, Populists, Marxists, and Marxians (among others) argue that - even in the absence of physical compulsion to work (slavery) - there are inherent power imbalances between some or all employers, on the one hand, and some or all workers, on the other.

The use of the word "exploitation" is a characterisation of the work for pay system, when it is applied with cruelty, or with compulsion, or on terms that are disagreeable to the employee.

These differences are largely in perception, though its not to say they are not genuine.

The elitist point of view of the employer is likely to see even an extremely imbalanced exchanged as fair, by virtue of the limited options of the servant.

The employee point of view can also be imbalanced by its perception, we can see this example in labor union issues, where some might levee their political power for self-serving reasons such as undue perks or excess pay raises.

View 2: "Exploitation does not exist in the free market"

Conservatives, Classical Liberals, Libertarians, and Anarcho-Capitalists (among others) argue that - absent physical compulsion - the only way that an employer may hire a worker is by offering a basket of goods (wages, working conditions, and benefits) sufficient to "bribe" him or her away from existing work options, and that therefore any employment relation that does not involve physical force or threats is - ipso facto - not exploitative. As a note: some prefer to lump Conservatives, Classical Liberals, Libertarians, and Anarcho-Capitalists together as "conservatives", because thei either do not see the distinctions between these groups, or consider the distinctions irrelevant, members of these groups see large gulfs between their ideologies. Instead of imposing a simplifying nomenclaturea choice on the heterogenous groups (e.g. "conservatives", a name that would shock many queer/polyamorous/punk/etc. libertarians and anarchists), we refer instead to their common views on this one issue, by referring to the "exploitation does not exist in the free market" faction/viewpoint.

Exploitation in various regions / economic climates

Exploitation present in Developed nations ?

Many in the "exploitation does not exist in the free market" faction argue that exploitation does occur, but only in non-free markets, such as markets that are dominated by unions using the threat of union violence to coerce either management to grant undue perks or excess pay raises, or to coerce reluctant workers into adopting the union position.

Others (often those in the "exploitation does exist in the free market" camp) argue that these kinds of abuses by labor occur rarely, as labor unions have lost most of their power and the institution of the sweatshop has become more common.

Exploitation present in Developing nations ?

The "exploitation does exist in the free market" viewpoint argues that a common example of corporate exploitation are clothing corporations such as Nike, and The Gap, which are alleged by some to use child labor and sweatshops in developomg nations to manufacture their products for salaries lower than those that prevail in . This, it is argued, is insufficient for the local cost of living if working hours common in the first world are observed, meaning that longer-than-first-world working hours are necessary. This viewpoint also argues that work conditions in these developing-world factories are less safe than in the first world.

The "exploitation does not exist in the free market" faction argues that, absent compulsion, the only way that corporations are able to secure adequate supplies of labor is to offer a basket of goods (a combination of wages, working conditions, hours, and safety) superior to preexisting options, and that the presence of workers in corporate factories indicates that the factories present options which are seen as better - by the workers themselves - than other options (see principle of revealed preference).

The "exploitation does exist in the free market" viewpoint responds that this is disingenuous, as the companies are in fact exploiting people by the terms of unequal human standards. Furthermore, the argument goes, if people choose to work for low wages and in unsafe conditions because it is their only alternative to starvation or scavenging from garbage dumps. Therefore, it cannot be seen as any kind of "free choice" on their part. . This viewpoint also argues that if a company intends to sell its products in the first world, it should pay its workers by first world standards.

The "exploitation does not exist in the free market" viewpoint responds that the workers do have other options besides starving: all of the options that existed before the corporations arrived, and which continue to exist (e.g. if workers feel exploited soldering motherboards, or sewing jackets in a factory, at given levels of salary, safety, etc., they are free to return to farming, fishing, or other traditional occupations). The argument that first world wages should be payed is rebutted by pointing out that if first world wages were mandated, the corporations in question would have no incentives to export factories to the developing world, and would keep the factories in the developed world, which would deny developing nation workers one employment choice.

Corporations exerting pressure on governments

The "exploitation does exist in the free market" viewpoint argues that corporate wealth can be a strong incentive in governments with weak human standards and rampant corruption, to persuade such governments to give various privileges to various corporations. Thus the case is often made that a corporate entity shares complicity in human rights abuses, when it enters into a working partnership with a tyrannical and abusive political government, to exploit the people for their labor.

Theory

Marxian theory

In Marxian theory, the "exploitation" described above is usually called "superexploitation," exploitation that goes beyond the normal standards of exploitation prevalent in capitalist society. While the theories discussed above emphasize the exploitation of one individual by an organization, the Marxian theory concerns the exploitation of one entire segment or class of society by another.

In the Marxian view, "normal" exploitation is based in three structural characteristics of that kind of society: (1) the monopoly of the ownership of the means of production by a small minority in society, the capitalists; (2) the inability of non-property-owners (the workers, proletarians) to survive without selling their labor-time to the capitalists; and (3) the state, which uses its strength to protect the unequal distribution of power and property in society. Because of these human-made institutions, workers have little or no choice but to pay the capitalists surplus-value (profits, interest, and rent) in exchange for their survival. They enter the realm of production, where they produce commodities, which allow their bosses to realize that surplus-value as profit. They are always threatened by the "reserve army of the unemployed." For more on this theory, see the discussion of Marx's labor theory of value.

Some Marxian theories of imperialism extend this kind of structural theory of exploitation further, positing exploitation of poor countries by rich capitalist ones. Some Marxist-feminists use a Marxian-style theory to understand relations of exploitation under patriarchy, while others see a kind of exploitation analogous to the Marxian sort as existing under institutional racism.

Liberal theories

There are also liberal theories of exploitation. In neoclassical economics, exploitation is a kind of market failure, a deviation from an ideal vision of capitalism. The most common neoclassical exploiter is a monopsony or a monopoly. These exploiters have bargaining power.

Another exploiter is the agent who takes advantage of the principal who hires her, under conditions of asymmetric information (see the principal-agent problem). A third exploiter is the free rider who takes advantage of others who pay for the production of public goods.

For others, exploitation coexists with perfect markets: given a special position in society (controlling an important asset), an interest group can shift the distribution of income in its direction, impoverishing the rest, even though their role serves no reasonable purpose. While Henry George pointed to land-owners, John Maynard Keynes saw rentiers as fitting this picture. In some ways, these theories are similar to the Marxian one discussed above. However, they represent the power and influence of special interests in society (and within the capitalist class) rather than representing a structural difference in class position of the Marxian sort.

Conservative, Classical Liberal, Libertarian, and Anarcho-Capitalist theories

Conservative, Classical Liberal, Libertarian, and Anarcho-Capitalist (see also Milton Friedman, free-market libertarians, laissez faire business conservatives) argue that because only criminals and states arrogate to themselves the use of force as a tool of coercion, that only criminals, governments, and states are exploitative.

In this view, a state is a monopoly run by a special interest group, regularly interfering with markets and other civil society processes.

See also

corporate abuse, slavery, child labor, child sexual exploitation, human exploitation, animal abuse, Class warfare, exploitation of natural resources, exploitation film, globalisation, free trade, fair trade