A question on capitalism

An intriguing question. Here is a good simple answer.

xuan I think the key is to look at the historically developed social relationship that forces Y to sell his capacity to work to Z. your logic is not flawed, it's just bourgeoisie logic.

no Khawaga, there's a problem with his scenario. He's outline a mercantile scenario.

With capitalism what you have is that you have Z, who owns a factory. Y is a worker, who owns nothing, and needs food/rent/stuff. So Z offers him work. Y makes 10 discs a day. Z sells them for $10, but only pays Y $10 a day to make them. The raw materials cost Z another $10 a day. So Y's labour is making Z $80, and there's nothing he can do to change the situation, because he doesn't have enough money to start a company to make stuff himself.

This is an unfair situation, you see?

You're right, the way you put it is better. The question xian posts though is pretty common, and it is often (in my experience anyway) put in nearly exactly those terms. It's all about that invisible hand moment, where the price of the worker is established between free and independent men both trying to get as much utility as their hearts desire.

yes. the important thing for us is that the scenario involves a worker and a boss, not 2 people selling something.

Yeah he's a nob, apologies I meant to delete that post.

No worries, you think you got it now?

Have you ever worked for a wage? The 'problem' becomes apparent rather quickly, without the insight of pro-revolutionary theory.

the thing that makes it unjust or oppressive is the unfreedom in it, that the worker is forced to put his or her working abilities for the use of the capitalist due to the capitalists having a monopoly on the means of production. it is the structural power of the capitalists that enable them to push the wage down to a level where they can make a profit, even tho they don't do anything, as capitalists.

but there are other situations where capitalists can gain an unearned income due to a power balance in relation to the working class. a landlord forces you to agree to a rent increase if you want the leak in the roof fixed. to get your check cashed, you go to a check-cashing joint that takes a huge bite out of it. these are forms of exploitation other than direct exploitation of a worker by the employer.

in that sense there could be exploitation even in a socierty without classes. suppose you have a society of self-employed artisans and farmers. there aren't wage laborers. but some group, maybe a guild, gets hold of some crucial choke point or essential item in the community, maybe a power plant or a grain mill or whatever. they would then be in a position to demand a larger than average share of the social product given their power advantage in the market.

so exploitation is gaining an unearned income due to some power over others in the economy, that gives an unfair advantage.