Relevant Excerpt

But while labor power is just like any other commodity in terms of how its price is determined, it is unique in one very importance respect. Labor, and labor alone, according to Marx, has the capacity to produce value beyond that which is necessary for its own reproduction. In other words, the value that goes into the commodities that sustain a worker for a twelve-hour work day is less than the value of the commodities that worker can produce during those twelve hours. This difference between the value a worker produces in a given period of time and the value of the consumption goods necessary to sustain the worker for that period is what Marx called surplus value.

According to Marx, then, it is as though the worker’s day is split into two parts. During the first part, the laborer works for himself, producing commodities the value of which is equal to the value of the wages he receives. During the second part, the laborer works for the capitalist, producing surplus value for the capitalist for which he receives no equivalent wages. During this second part of the day, the laborer’s work is, in effect, unpaid, in precisely the same way (though not as visibly) as a feudal serf’s corvée is unpaid (Marx 1867).

...

The view of exploitation seems to be that if bob gets paid 10 dollars by steve to pick 10 apples from his orchard to be sold at 5 dollars each, bob is being robbed of the additional 40 dollars that steve gets from the sale of the apples.

If we grant that this is exploitation and bob is being swindled (neither of which i believe is the case), how is the situation any better by replacing steve with local neighborhood?

That is bob would be getting paid 10 dollars by the neighborhood to pick 10 apples from the orchard to be sold at 5 dollars each and the neighbourhood pockets the profits. This is somehow better because theft or exploitation of an individual by a group of people is better than theft or exploitation by an individual?

On an interesting note cuba does precisely this leasing out doctors and collecting exorbitant revenues for the services they provide "while the doctors get paid dirt cheap wages.

I would say that your scenario needs remodeling.

The neighborhood will take the apples from Bob and pay him $4, and then reallocate $4 of apples elsewhere, with $2 of the $4 going to the neighborhood councilman and the missing $2 lost due to waste.

So one of the issues with the specific framework Marx gives is that working together creates extra value on top of your own work.

Bob and Steve both work to create a product alone, and make 1 product a day. Bob and Steve decide to specialize, so that they can each complete 4 parts a day. The first half of the day Bob makes 4 parts, Steve makes 4 parts, and the second half of the day they make 4 products that day.

They've doubled their value while keeping their labor the same.

If this was as far as the system went, nobody would have an issue. It would genuinely be a matter of individuals working together for mutual self-interest. If Bob and Steve have a falling out, they can go back to working individually for less.

The problem with our current system, is that our entire society has been molded around the idea of private property that enables this cooperation, but in a way that gives a large advantage to the person who "owns" the means of production, and any attempt to leave this system results in effectively starvation. Bob and Steve make a company, and patent the product, and now nobody else can make it for 7 or more years. They hire people to make it, and each person makes 12 products a day, but the workers are now paid the equivalent of 0.5 products a day.

Want to work for yourself on your farm and sell a small surplus? Too bad. Your farm's been destroyed by unethical business practices of the corporate farmers. Maybe you're in central America and they literally just burned down your house and took your farm, and nobody did anything to protect it despite your "property rights". Maybe the supreme court said the government can regulate your personal wheat consumption because "it effects the market". Either way, have fun starving while you continue to try to not live in the system. But remember, it's voluntary!



Anyway, that's the problem with capitalism. Capitalism is good at creating excess value, but is poor at distributing the benefits. Without significant interference in the market you get massive collections of money "owned" by a smaller and smaller group, and inevitably that smaller group starts engaging in highly unethical and usually straight up immoral (Pinkertons firing into Union strike lines anybody?) practices.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Mar 16 2021 09:23pm

Add in increased production with no wage increase, for example when i was still with bp we started doing uber eats, deliveroo, menulog, hubbed (a parcel drop off system) and many other HUGE deals that made the company literal billions, employees had to do training to learn these things, they had extra work added to their loads but they did not get an extra cent in pay.
I personally think this is a huge issue that will only get worse over time.