(EPE, pp 307-310)
In a sense, "taking advantage of" or "using
selfishly" other people is precisely the sort of behavior
assumed to be the norm by mainstream neo-classical economics.
There, market transactors are seen as forthrightly using <each
other> in pure, unabashed self-interest, and odious as this
universalized self-seeking may seem, no one is harmed by it, at
least not in competitive markets, where an 'invisible hand' is
said to turn it to the best interest of all.
Heterodox political economists, however, understand "exploitation"
quite differently. Some would argue that not only is self-oriented
utility-maximization immoral, even in ideal circumstances [see
ETHICS, MORAL SCIENCE & POLITICAL ECONOMY], but it is also
contrary to RATIONALITY, being antithetical to the survival needs
of a highly social human species. Moreover, as heterodox economists
use the term, "exploitation" designates a fundamentally
<unbalanced> relationship: The "exploiter" has
some form of POWER over the other person -- perhaps based on a
threat of physical or emotional abuse, or fraud or other deception
-- and uses it to get the other person to do things that are not
in his/her own interest but in the exploiter's interest instead.
The 'subordinate' may or may not be aware that some of his/her
time or energy is being diverted for someone else's use, but in
either case would not consent to it if permitted some voice in
the matter.
Thus, exploitation means taking for one's own advantage some of
the very 'life-activity' of another person [see ALIENATION], or
getting the other person to <labor> for oneself rather than
for his/her own purposes. Most mainstream economists would doubt
that exploitation so defined exists in any great degree in free-market
systems, although they do acknowledge that firms with ECONOMIC
POWER due to imperfect MARKET STRUCTURES may "exploit"
their customers or employees. Heterodox economists, however, are
committed to investigating several varieties of exploitation,
and find them pervasive, and even systemic, in the capitalist
economy just as they are elsewhere: social CLASS, in which subordinate
class members labor for a dominant class by virtue of a lack of
access to the society's means of production; RACIAL exploitation,
in which members of one racial or ethnic group are similarly compelled
to labor for another; PATRIARCHY, where women and perhaps children
are exploited by men; and COLONIALISM AND IMPERIALISM, in which
people of one society or nation are exploited by those of another.
Of these, probably the best understood among economists is class-based
exploitation -- its analysis is in many ways a model for that
of the other forms, and some would even subsume the latter as
mere special cases of it [see RACE, ETHNICITY, GENDER, CLASS].
A dominant class compels or induces a working class to produce
a SURPLUS of goods and services, i.e., above and beyond what working
class people themselves need for 'subsistence'. The surplus is
appropriated by the dominant class, hence represents the product
of a portion of workers' labor that they have expended not for
themselves but for the dominant class. Because some kind of power
structure is necessarily involved, part of the surplus must go
to sustaining that structure -- e.g., for the subsistence and
other material needs of people in the 'command hierarchy', in
police and adjudication institutions, in ideological activities,
etc. [see PRODUCTIVE & UNPRODUCTIVE LABOR & CAPITAL].
The rest of the surplus is then available to the dominant class
for personal or collective consumption or for investment.
In principle, it is possible to measure the 'extent' or the <rate
of exploitation> in a class society -- e.g., by the amount
of labor time workers spend producing the surplus, relative to
that spent on the 'necessary' portion of their product [Marx,
1977]. So measured, the 'extent' of exploitation may be increased,
cet. par., by increasing the HOURS OF WORK per day (or per year,
etc.) or the intensity with which workers labor, by increasing
the PRODUCTIVITY of labor, or by reducing workers' material livelihood.
In the last case, in principle, the rate of exploitation may be
so greatly increased that the working class is <superexploited>,
i.e, the workers' portion of their total product is reduced to
something less than they require for subsistence [Mandel, 1970,
455]. Of course, such a circumstance cannot last for long. And
too, increasing the rate of exploitation by these or other means
might require a greater expenditure on strengthening the requisite
power structure than may be warranted by the additional surplus
returned to the dominant class. In general then, the rate of exploitation
in a society at a point in time is determined by the whole complexity
of factors underlying both the productivity of labor and the balance
of the 'class struggle' [see CLASS PROCESSES, POSITIONS &
STRUCTURES]. Besides thus indicating the state of an important
set of social relations, the rate of exploitation is a crucial
determinant of an economy's capacity for growth [see SURPLUS APPROACH
TO DEVELOPMENT], and particularly in capitalist economies, of
the RATE OF PROFIT as well.
Obviously SLAVERY and FEUDALISM are examples of class-based exploitation,
and nearly all western political economists would agree that so
too are modern Soviet-type COMMUNIST economies. Despite neo-classical
economists' generally disregarding the claim, CAPITALISM is arguably
an economy of class-based exploitation as well: Property income,
the hallmark of capitalism, is not a 'reward for productive work'
but instead a share of the economy's total product received solely
as a function of property ownership [see SURPLUS VALUE AS PROFIT,
RENT & INTEREST] -- and access to it is, of course, inherently
highly unequal [see INEQUALITY OF INCOME, WEALTH & POWER].
Racial exploitation, patriarchy and imperialism are closely connected
with the phenomenon of social class. Classes have often been partly
defined along lines of gender and/or 'foreign-ness', and all these
forms of exploitation probably arose together and reinforced each
other in the pre-history of human 'civilization' [see ECONOMIC
ANTHROPOLOGY]. Today, however, these modes of exploitation are
considerably differentiated.
Men's exploitation of women rests mainly upon unequal access to
means of economic and personal enrichment and positions of status
and influence, even in the most advanced societies today, on account
of legal, cultural and other institutional DISCRIMINATION. In
the paid labor-force a SEXUAL DIVISION OF LABOR -- arising from
women's socialization in youth, school 'tracking', etc. -- places
women disproportionately in subordinate and low-wage occupations.
On account of such inequalities in the larger society, power relations
arise within the HOUSEHOLD, where they engender, in turn, an 'unequal
exchange' of DOMESTIC LABOR between men and women. Violence may
also play a role in subduing women in the household, and their
inferior position there then reinforces their disadvantaged status
in the larger society, by permitting them to be more easily exploited
in the paid labor-force. Lower wages for women than for men follow
directly, even in the same occupations, women being thereby subject
to a higher rate of exploitation in wage-labor -- which, of course,
reinforces the adverse power relations and exploitation to which
they are subject within the family.
Similar processes are at work in racial and ethnic exploitation.
Legal and extra-legal discrimination places ethnic groups in disadvantaged
positions in external and INTERNAL LABOR MARKETS, housing markets,
schooling, etc. This leads to major disparities in their and their
offspring's accumulated wealth and cultural and HUMAN CAPITAL,
which in turn reinforces their segregation into subordinate and
low-paying occupations, and strengthens attitudes and practices
of RACISM toward them among more privileged groups. While many
would contend that capitalism per se has nothing to do with race
and gender exploitation, clearly it is arguable that it has historically
intensified rather than mitigated both forms.
Capitalism is also implicated in the modern history of colonial
expansionism [see PRIMITIVE ACCUMULATION]. In general, exploitation
in colonialism occurs by overtly coercive means: the colonizer
simply takes the colony's products and resources without pretense
of offering anything in exchange. In imperialism, at least that
of the late twentieth century, the means of exploitation are much
more complex. One country may subtly apply political and military
power to dominate the other country's TRADE POLICY and other policies
on financial and investment flows, EXCHANGE RATES, taxes, labor
relations, etc. [see CORE-PERIPHERY ANALYSIS]. Or it may merely
take advantage of an industrially undeveloped country's inherently
retarded position in competitive world markets [see COMPARATIVE
ADVANTAGE AND UNEQUAL EXCHANGE]. In either case, the outcome is
a retardation or reversal in the subordinate country's development
due to the appropriation of its economic surplus by the dominant
country (and perhaps the latter's allied 'comprador' classes in
the subordinate country) [see UNEVEN DEVELOPMENT, LAW OF].
Exploitation is invariably rationalized by those benefitting from
it [see IDEOLOGY & POLITICAL ECONOMY]. For example, dominant
classes may argue that economic development requires a surplus
product for investment, and class-based exploitation (especially
the capitalist kind) is the most effective means of appropriating
one. Of course, it must still be shown that those in the working
class (or perhaps their offspring) will themselves benefit from
the growth process -- and that, most importantly, they <consent>
to it. Alternatively, the dominant groups may argue that they
'deserve' their status in one way or another -- subordinates are,
for example, 'innately inferior'. The analysis of exploitation
shows quite clearly, however, that the disadvantaged are in that
position not on account of any 'inferiority' at all, but by having
been <subjugated to others' advantage>. Progress toward
a congenial human society can only begin by acknowledging that
fact.
REFERENCES & FURTHER READINGS:
Barone, Charles (1985). Marxist Thought on Imperialism. M.E. Sharpe: Armonk, N.Y.
Mandel, Ernest (1970). Marxist Economic Theory. Monthly Review Press: N.Y.
Marx, Karl (1977). Capital (Vol. 1). Vintage Books, Random House: N.Y.
Roemer, John E. (1988). Free to Lose. Harvard U. Press: Cambridge.
Walby, S. (1990). Theorizing Patriarchy. Blackwell: Oxford.