5 ms·

Now depending on your viewpoint you might say that wage labor is inherently exploitative

mc32 5y ago
What work doesn’t involve some exploitation? Either natural or human? If you’re someone who does fishing for a living, self-employed, is the haggler exploiting you are you exploiting them? Is the other boat exploiting you if they undersell you? If you barter with someone who hunts deer who is exploiting whom? Or does exploitation only come into focus when it’s private capital (as opposed to state capital)?
- malermeister 5y ago
  My personal opinion is that every economic interaction within capitalism is exploitative in one way or another. The only way for it not to be is if we all worked towards a shared goal, with pooled resources. Most people on this site would disagree with that view though.
  - goldenkey 5y ago
    Being born is still exploitative when one does not have a choice in the matter. You are essentially being signed up for a life of survival. This is the basis for anti-natalism.
    - Robotbeat 5y ago
      What a dark view of the world. I choose not to subscribe to it.
      - goldenkey 5y ago
        You can choose not to subscribe but that doesn't make it any less true.
    - mc32 5y ago
      So life in general is exploitative, be it microorganism or the largest animal?
      - goldenkey 5y ago
        Indeed.
    - ac42 5y ago
      Let's call BS. It's inane to claim existence being the root of all evil, because, yeah, it's the root of friggin' _everything_. Nothing is forced on "you" because without existence there is no "you". Or anti-natalists could just as easily be blamed of "depriving" the non-born of their chance to live. Ouch. I, for one, enjoy life (and don't you dare tell me I just don't realise it sucks). I even like working on the hard bits, like underpaid shopkeepers and inhumane working hours, thank you.
      - goldenkey 5y ago
        > It's inane to claim existence being the root of all evil, because, yeah, it's the root of friggin' _everything_. It is not a matter of fact that conscious existence is the root of all things. To state such, is to take an unprovable philosophical position. > Nothing is forced on "you" because without existence there is no "you". Or anti-natalists could just as easily be blamed of "depriving" the non-born of their chance to live. Ouch. Not relevant. The forcing only happens during one's existence. Thus, stating an individual is forced to survive is not some semantic null pointer error. Furthermore, one cannot be blamed for depriving non-born of life, because they do not actually exist. That is a null pointer error. Your examples actually support my position. > I, for one, enjoy life (and don't you dare tell me I just don't realise it sucks). I even like working on the hard bits, like underpaid shopkeepers and inhumane working hours, thank you. You seem rather embittered about life, so much so that you take everything I've said out of context. Helpings others is a virtue. Life is still cruel though. I did not say life is sucky. Sucky is a sophomoric adjective that ill describes something as complex as life. I get it, you are invested in convincing yourself that you love/like your life. Even if that is the case, in actuality, it doesn't change the nature of life for everyone, including your future self. By all means, if we are here, we should do be the best we can to enjoy the ride and help make this place better for those who come next. But let's not be in denial about the nature of life. For all the ice cream you eat, the sex that you have, the loving relationships you share, it won't nullify the abyssal horrors experienced by unlucky living beings [1] I don't see how anyone sane could think that living an enjoyable life somehow balances out the lives of those who endure absolute horrors. [1] https://youtu.be/oHJuzE0k1V8 https://youtu.be/oHJuzE0k1V8
  - closeparen 5y ago
    All that does is move the exploitation into the treatment of dissenters against those “shared” goals.
    - malermeister 5y ago
      That's not really exploitation though. No surplus value is stolen.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
- b3morales 5y ago
  Please note that none of your examples are wage labor. Not to speak for the other commenter, but I don't think the question of state/private is relevant either.
  - mc32 5y ago
    Selling my fish is in practice, wage labor. You, the buyer/eater, is paying me for having harvested from the seas rather than you doing it yourself.
    - b3morales 5y ago
      Now that "in practice" is erasing a key distinction on your side of the fence while insisting on precise definition for the other side (what does exploitation mean).
    - ipaddr 5y ago
      I am paying for a product in a certain state. No one is paying for your services. You could have purchased that fish from someone else first. People are paying for fish.
- squidlogic 5y ago
  exploit verb Definition of exploit (Entry 2 of 2) 1 : to make productive use of : UTILIZE exploiting your talents exploit your opponent's weakness 2 : to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage Is it unfair if you both mutually agree upon the trade?
  - mc32 5y ago
    I think the only place where there is no exploitation, is if you're self-sufficient and have no interaction with anyone else. If there is a transaction, there is always a risk of exploitation. Someone has the upper hand and someone is the party under more duress --sometimes the little guy and sometimes the big gal. Even when working towards a communal goal as someone in the thread mentioned. Maybe I don't care if the communal canal doesn't get built. Maybe I'm okay with dying of thirst, etc.
  - pasabagi 5y ago
    I think the problem is 1. incentivises the exploiter to dehumanize the exploited. They are interested in the productive use of a person, not the person themselves. As such, exploitation has an inherently and strongly abusive tendency, whether or not that's actually manifested or not.
    - squidlogic 5y ago
      The purchaser of a service shouldn’t be interested in every aspect of the person providing that service. There may be some human rights that need to be respected, but those are codified into law. Also, I don’t think it follows that because someone does not care about all aspects of a person they are therefore dehumanizing them. Who of us ever really cares about every single aspect of another person? Even your spouse or close family member will have parts of them that you don’t care to engage with. In fact they may choose to keep those aspects private from you, meaning you cannot care about them. In an employer employee relationship I expect it is similar. The employer shouldn’t be allowed to delve into the parts of the employees life that are unrelated to the “trade” of service for wage. This type of snooping would be expected and maybe required if the employer was supposed to care about the person themselves. Fundamentally this is about the right of the individual to alienate their labor. I can sell my labor to others, but nothing else. To sell your whole person is slavery. It seems wage earning is an innovation not an exploitation.

mc32 5y ago

What work doesn’t involve some exploitation? Either natural or human? If you’re someone who does fishing for a living, self-employed, is the haggler exploiting you are you exploiting them? Is the other boat exploiting you if they undersell you? If you barter with someone who hunts deer who is exploiting whom? Or does exploitation only come into focus when it’s private capital (as opposed to state capital)?

malermeister 5y ago
My personal opinion is that every economic interaction within capitalism is exploitative in one way or another. The only way for it not to be is if we all worked towards a shared goal, with pooled resources. Most people on this site would disagree with that view though.
- goldenkey 5y ago
  Being born is still exploitative when one does not have a choice in the matter. You are essentially being signed up for a life of survival. This is the basis for anti-natalism.
  - Robotbeat 5y ago
    What a dark view of the world. I choose not to subscribe to it.
    - goldenkey 5y ago
      You can choose not to subscribe but that doesn't make it any less true.
  - mc32 5y ago
    So life in general is exploitative, be it microorganism or the largest animal?
    - goldenkey 5y ago
      Indeed.
  - ac42 5y ago
    Let's call BS. It's inane to claim existence being the root of all evil, because, yeah, it's the root of friggin' _everything_. Nothing is forced on "you" because without existence there is no "you". Or anti-natalists could just as easily be blamed of "depriving" the non-born of their chance to live. Ouch. I, for one, enjoy life (and don't you dare tell me I just don't realise it sucks). I even like working on the hard bits, like underpaid shopkeepers and inhumane working hours, thank you.
    - goldenkey 5y ago
      > It's inane to claim existence being the root of all evil, because, yeah, it's the root of friggin' _everything_. It is not a matter of fact that conscious existence is the root of all things. To state such, is to take an unprovable philosophical position. > Nothing is forced on "you" because without existence there is no "you". Or anti-natalists could just as easily be blamed of "depriving" the non-born of their chance to live. Ouch. Not relevant. The forcing only happens during one's existence. Thus, stating an individual is forced to survive is not some semantic null pointer error. Furthermore, one cannot be blamed for depriving non-born of life, because they do not actually exist. That is a null pointer error. Your examples actually support my position. > I, for one, enjoy life (and don't you dare tell me I just don't realise it sucks). I even like working on the hard bits, like underpaid shopkeepers and inhumane working hours, thank you. You seem rather embittered about life, so much so that you take everything I've said out of context. Helpings others is a virtue. Life is still cruel though. I did not say life is sucky. Sucky is a sophomoric adjective that ill describes something as complex as life. I get it, you are invested in convincing yourself that you love/like your life. Even if that is the case, in actuality, it doesn't change the nature of life for everyone, including your future self. By all means, if we are here, we should do be the best we can to enjoy the ride and help make this place better for those who come next. But let's not be in denial about the nature of life. For all the ice cream you eat, the sex that you have, the loving relationships you share, it won't nullify the abyssal horrors experienced by unlucky living beings [1] I don't see how anyone sane could think that living an enjoyable life somehow balances out the lives of those who endure absolute horrors. [1] https://youtu.be/oHJuzE0k1V8 https://youtu.be/oHJuzE0k1V8
- closeparen 5y ago
  All that does is move the exploitation into the treatment of dissenters against those “shared” goals.
  - malermeister 5y ago
    That's not really exploitation though. No surplus value is stolen.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
b3morales 5y ago
Please note that none of your examples are wage labor. Not to speak for the other commenter, but I don't think the question of state/private is relevant either.
- mc32 5y ago
  Selling my fish is in practice, wage labor. You, the buyer/eater, is paying me for having harvested from the seas rather than you doing it yourself.
  - b3morales 5y ago
    Now that "in practice" is erasing a key distinction on your side of the fence while insisting on precise definition for the other side (what does exploitation mean).
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    I am paying for a product in a certain state. No one is paying for your services. You could have purchased that fish from someone else first. People are paying for fish.
squidlogic 5y ago
exploit verb Definition of exploit (Entry 2 of 2) 1 : to make productive use of : UTILIZE exploiting your talents exploit your opponent's weakness 2 : to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage Is it unfair if you both mutually agree upon the trade?
- mc32 5y ago
  I think the only place where there is no exploitation, is if you're self-sufficient and have no interaction with anyone else. If there is a transaction, there is always a risk of exploitation. Someone has the upper hand and someone is the party under more duress --sometimes the little guy and sometimes the big gal. Even when working towards a communal goal as someone in the thread mentioned. Maybe I don't care if the communal canal doesn't get built. Maybe I'm okay with dying of thirst, etc.
- pasabagi 5y ago
  I think the problem is 1. incentivises the exploiter to dehumanize the exploited. They are interested in the productive use of a person, not the person themselves. As such, exploitation has an inherently and strongly abusive tendency, whether or not that's actually manifested or not.
  - squidlogic 5y ago
    The purchaser of a service shouldn’t be interested in every aspect of the person providing that service. There may be some human rights that need to be respected, but those are codified into law. Also, I don’t think it follows that because someone does not care about all aspects of a person they are therefore dehumanizing them. Who of us ever really cares about every single aspect of another person? Even your spouse or close family member will have parts of them that you don’t care to engage with. In fact they may choose to keep those aspects private from you, meaning you cannot care about them. In an employer employee relationship I expect it is similar. The employer shouldn’t be allowed to delve into the parts of the employees life that are unrelated to the “trade” of service for wage. This type of snooping would be expected and maybe required if the employer was supposed to care about the person themselves. Fundamentally this is about the right of the individual to alienate their labor. I can sell my labor to others, but nothing else. To sell your whole person is slavery. It seems wage earning is an innovation not an exploitation.