Theory of Exploitation

[ilaughatrightwingers]

Jonny Ball (Freedom, vol. 71, no. 12) asks whether Marx’s analysis of capitalism is still valid. He argues that in “Marxist theory, the profit of the bourgeoisie is based on the theft of surplus value from the proletariat” and so capitalism “creates inequality and class antagonisms since the working classes are paid less than what they produce, and the rest is appropriated by the capitalist class.”

Of course this is still valid. Yet why is this considered uniquely Marxist when it was first expounded by anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon? Yes, it was Proudhon, not Marx, who first unlocked how exploitation happened in capitalism, namely in production as a consequence of wage-labour, of workers selling their labour (liberty) to a boss.


Marx argued that “the worker bows to the command, direction and the supervision of the capitalist . . . the capitalist forces the workers to extend the duration of the labour process as far as possible beyond the limits of the labour-time needed to reproduce the amount paid in wages, since it is just this excess labour that supplies him with the surplus-value.” (Capital , vol. 1, pp. 1010-1) In a footnote he decides to lambast Proudhon, quoting from his Systéme des Contradictions Économiques (Oeuvres Complètes , volumes IV and V) on “the principle that all labour should leave an excess”, and states:

“I have shown that M. Proudhon has not the slightest idea what this ‘excédent du travail’ is, namely the surplus product in which the surplus labour or unpaid labour of the worker becomes manifest. Since he finds that all labour in fact produces such an ‘excédent’ in capitalist production he attempts to explain this fact by reference to some mysterious natural attribute of labour.” (pp. 1011-2)

Proudhon does not use the term “excédent du travail” in the chapter Marx quotes, but he does in volume 2 in the chapter on property:
“I have proven . . . that every labour must leave a surplus; so that in supposing the consumption of the labourer to be always the same, his labour should create, on top of his subsistence, a capital always greater. Under the regime of property, the surplus of labour, essentially collective, passes entirely, like the revenue, to the proprietor: now, between that disguised appropriation and the fraudulent usurpation of a communal good, where is the difference?

“The consequence of that usurpation is that the labourer, whose share of the collective product is constantly confiscated by the entrepreneur, is always on his uppers, while the capitalist is always in profit . . . and that political economy, that upholds and advocates that regime, is the theory of theft, as property, the respect of which maintains a similar state of things, is the religion of force.” (pp. 246-7)

According to Marx the secret of capitalist exploitation was that “property turns out to be the right, on the part of the capitalist, to appropriate the unpaid labour of others or its product” and so “the value of the labour-power . . . is less than the value created by its use during that time” and that “the product belongs to the capitalist and not to the worker.” (pp. 730-1) As Proudhon put it in 1840:
“Whoever labours becomes a proprietor – this is an inevitable deduction from the principles of political economy and jurisprudence. And when I say proprietor, I do not mean simply (as do our hypocritical economists) proprietor of his allowance, his salary, his wages, – I mean proprietor of the value he creates, and by which the master alone profits . . . The labourer retains, even after he has received his wages, a natural right in the thing he was produced.” (What is Property? , pp. 123-4)

Moreover, Proudhon was well aware of workplace hierarchy:
“Thus, property, which should make us free, makes us prisoners. What am I saying? It degrades us, by making us servants and tyrants to one another.

“Do you know what it is to be a wage-worker? To work under a master, watchful of his prejudices even more than of his orders . . . Not to have any thought of your own, to study without ceasing the thought of others, to know no stimulus except your daily bread, and the fear of losing your job!

“The wage-worker is a man to whom the proprietor who hires his services gives this speech: What you have to do does not concern you at all: you do not control it, you do not answer for it. Every observation is forbidden to you; there is no profit for you to hope for except from your wage, no risk to run, no blame to fear.” (Systéme des Contradictions Économiques, Vol. 2, pp. 230-1)

In short, workers “have sold their arms and parted with their liberty without knowing the import of the contract.” (Vol. 1, p. 243) Property “violates equality by the rights of exclusion and increase, and freedom by despotism.” It has “perfect identity with robbery” and the worker “has sold and surrendered his liberty” to the proprietor. Thus “property is despotism” as well as exploitative (What is Property?, p. 251, p. 130, p. 259)

What of the charge that Proudhon explains exploitation “by reference to some mysterious natural attribute of labour”? Marx asserts that the capitalist “must be lucky enough to find in the sphere of circulation, on the market, a commodity whose use-value possesses the peculiar property of being a source of value . . . the capacity for labour, in other words labour-power.” (p. 270) So Proudhon is mocked for raising a “mysterious natural attribute of labour” while Marx postulates a “peculiar property” of labour! Moreover, as Marx admits:
“Capital did not invent surplus labour. Wherever a part of society possesses the monopoly of the means of production, the worker, free or unfree, must add to the labour-time necessary for his own maintenance an extra quantity of labour time in order to produce the means of subsistence for the owner of the means of production” (p. 344)

So “surplus labour” has existed in all class societies. In short, to “live as a proprietor, or to consume without producing, it is necessary, then, to live upon the labour of another.” (Proudhon, What is Property?, p. 293)

What about non-class societies? Marx discusses when “the workers are themselves in possession of their respective means of production and exchange their commodities with one another. These commodities would not be products of capital.” These workers “have created . . . new values, i.e., the working day added to the means of production. This would comprise their wages plus surplus-value, the surplus labour over and above their necessary requirements, though the result of this would belong to themselves.” (Capital , vol. 3, p. 276)

Rest assured, though, in spite of labour producing a surplus throughout history and in co-operatives “in no case would his surplus product arise from some innate, occult quality of human labour”! (Capital, vol. 1, p. 651) This assertion, of course followed on from the usual dismissive comment against Proudhon. At other times, though, Marx was more forthcoming: “A level of productivity of agricultural labour which goes beyond the individual needs of the worker is the basis of all society.” (Capital, vol. 3, p. 921)

So if, as Marx suggested, the “two characteristic phenomena” of capitalism is that the worker “works under the control of the capitalist to whom his labour belongs” and “the product is the property of the capitalist and not that of the worker, its immediate producer” (Capital, vol. 1, pp. 291-2) then this had been recognised by Proudhon decades previously. Thus “a labourer, without property, without capital, without work, is hired by , who gives him employment and takes his product” and so the workers each “produced during the year ten, and have consumed only nine.” (Oeuvres Complètes , vol. XIX , p. 295, p. 296) In short, the “free worker produces ten; for me, thinks the proprietor, he will produce twelve” and so to “satisfy property, the labourer must first produce beyond his needs.” Property, in other words, “is the right to enjoy and dispose at will of another’s goods – the fruit of another’s industry and labour” (What is Property?, pp. 184-5, p. 171)

Unsurprisingly, seeing exploitation occurring in production as a result of wage-labour, Proudhon sought a solution there. Workers co-operatives and socio-economic federation would abolish wage-labour and its exploitation and oppression.

In conclusion, the evidence is clear that the Marxist analysis of exploitation within capitalism was first postulated by Proudhon in 1840 and expanded upon in 1846. Marx simply built upon these foundations while disparaging Proudhon at every turn. Yes, the key to analysing capitalism is to understand that it is exploitative (“property is theft”) and oppressive (“property is despotism”). As such, yes, we anarchists can agree with much of Marx’s analysis of capitalism – for he developed Proudhon’s insights!

From: http://anarchistnews.org/?q=node/12229

[ironrooster]

1. not very pithy is it?

Yes, while what you state not news to anyone - "property is theft" - of course it is -
and it's a basic instinct of human beings who are hard wired to be suspicious of other's motives
and to hoard shit for survival. People take what they think they need through force, stealth or
coercion (which is a species of force). The law at its very best only mitigates the effect of
the more powerful upon the less powerful. At its worst it codifies the theft of
resources from a weak majority and funnels the wealth - fruits of excess labor - to the
powerful minority. But what to do?

Anarchists could use a good PR firm.


Let me suggest that anyone who wants to alter the status quo reduce their dependence on the
means of control of the predator state. I'll leave it up to you to decide what that means.