Talk:Exploitation of labour

It is stated in the article: "[exploitation] is a kind of market failure, a deviation from an ideal vision of capitalism." This is, of course, a contradiction in terms. Exploitation is indeed a deviation from Capitalism, but it cannot be a market failure, of course. Market failure is claimed by anti-free-market advocates to be the natural result of free-rolling capitalism.

This is typical of the problematic conceptualisation of "exploitation" in this article: both neoclassical and neoliberal thories are used here as "carriers" of variations of the Marxists ideas, whereas in fact both claim that under free market conditions exploitation is not possible, and only exists as a result of governmental action to limit activities in the market. 192.115.133.141 12:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I removed the specific references to certain brand names. While I'm not disputing the accuracy or inaccuracy of the allegations, I think it wise to remove the specific references as there are no citations. - Riaan

And Ciara Says "HI" to all of her homies!!!!:)

Ok I've been drinking cocktails but I thought this "In brief, the profit gained by the capitalist is the difference between the value of the product made by the worker and the actual wage that the worker receives; in other words, capitalism functions on the basis of paying workers less than the full value product of their labor." was so insightful. Thanks everyone for this informative article. special, random, Merkinsmum 01:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I know that many think today that the Soviet system was well-intended but am adding Economy of the Soviet Union. Obviously a business exists primarily to benefit its shareholders, not its workers. Businesses are up-front about that. Is it more or less dishonest to run a system that is theoretically in favour of the workers but in reality exploits them?86.42.213.48 (talk) 11:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

missing definition Exploitation has a distinct meaning in the intelligence and military communities that is not captured here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.104.145.50 (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

This is very bad and needs to be removed, if only because of no references.

In Marxian economics, exploitation refers to the subjection of producers (the proletariat) to work for passive owners (bourgeoisie) for less compensation than is equivalent to the actual amount of work done. The proletarian is forced to sell his or her labour power, rather than a set quantity of labour, in order to receive a wage in order to survive, while the capitalist exploits the work performed by the proletarian by accumulating the surplus value of their labour. Therefore, the capitalist makes his/her living by passively owning a means of production and generating a profit, when instead the labor should be entitled to all it produces.

Here is how exploitation is defined in Bottomore's Marxist Dictionary 2nd ed, 1991 p.176-177

Capitalism differs from NON-CAPITALIST MODES OF PRODUCTION in that exploitation formally takes place without the direct intervention of force or non-economic processes. The surplus in the capitalist mode arises from the specific character of its production process and epecially, the manner in which it is linked to the process of EXCHANGE. Capitalist production generates a surplus because capitalists buy workers' labour-power at a wage equal to its value but, being in control of production, extract labour greater than the equivalent of that wage. Marx differed from the classical political economists, who saw exploitation as arising from the unequal exchange of labour for the wage. For Marx, the distinction between labour and labour power allowed the latter to be sold at its value while the former created the surplus. Thus exploitation occurs in the capitalist mode of production behind the backs of the participants, hidden by the facade of free and equal exchange (see COMMODITY FETISHISM).