[OPE-L:7567] RE: Formalism and "exploitation"

From: mongiovg (mongiovg@stjohns.edu)
Date: Thu Aug 29 2002 - 16:06:14 EDT

Hmmm. I can't decide whether  (i) Gil's question is so big that I need to 
spend a few months thinking about it, or (ii) it's not a problem at all, so I 
can toss off a short answer that'll clear things up right away. I'm gonna toss 
off the short answer and mull over the bigger issues at my leisure, as the 
discussion unfolds further.

I think, Gil, that you're manufacturing a problem that doesn't exist. I've got 
no beef with formalism per se, as I guess everyone on this list knows.  But 
the question of how unequal class relations can emerge and persist doesn't 
seem to me to be the sort of issue than can usefully be explored via formal 
models. I'd look to history and perhaps political science for the answer to 
this question. Gil alludes to "formally equal relations of exchange," but why 
take that as a starting point?  I'll wager that the "relations of exchange" 
that ultimately produced the constellation of institutions we call capitalism 
were decidedly coercive and unequal.  The outcome was a system that 
perpetuates a particular hierarchical and exploitative class structure.  
Where's the mystery here? Or do I misunderstand the question?


>===== Original Message From Gil Skillman <gskillman@mail.wesleyan.edu> =====
>Gary--Well, we're more or less on the same page here.  I also have an issue
>with the value-laden connotations of the term "exploitation," for example.
>But putting aside problems with the term itself, it seems to me that some
>degree of formalism (beyond what can be gotten from history and
>contemporary anecdotes) is desirable for other than accounting purposes,
>i.e., to make clear how relations of *class*--and thus the indignities and
>coercion that come with them--are distinct from similarly hierarchical,
>coercive and demeaning relations of gender, race, etc.  Put another way, it
>seems absolutely central to ask how essentially unequal class relations
>might persistently emerge from formally equal relations of exchange.  To
>answer that sort of question analytically, wouldn't you need some fairly
>tight notion of (a) what is meant by essential inequality in this context,
>and (b) what economic conditions might give rise to such substantive
>inequality?   Gil
>>In response to Gil:
>>Good question.  Let me begin by saying that I don't much care for the term
>>"exploitation," not because I don't think it is real and pervasive, but
>>because I don't see how we can talk about it without coming across like
>>ideologues to economists who are not Marxists. More to the point, as I
>>suggested in my post, I think the term is too value-loaded to be useful in
>>scientific discourse. (Please, don't anyone ask me to define scientific: 
>>too big a question.)
>>Marx's definition is quite serviceable. You want to conduct an econometric
>>analysis of the circumstances that influence the degree of "exploitation"
>>in a
>>particular political economy? Marx's accounting system seems like a
>>starting point. But if workers' living standards (their real wages) don't
>>decline monotonically with the ratio of labor values s/v you'll probably 
>>some explaining to do to the typical non-Marxist referee. And remember,
>>not explaining anything other than the degree to which various factors
>>influence a particular ratio, s/v. Calling that ratio the "rate of
>>exploitation" doesn't constitute an insight about how the world works: all 
>>does is put an ideological spin on the (possibly quite interesting) 
>>results. Garegnani identifies exploitation (more or less) with situations in
>>which workers don't get to keep all of the output they produce. In other
>>contexts this might be a useful definition. But in the end, both of these
>>definitions (and Roemer's as well) are too formal to capture what is really
>>involved in exploitative production arrangements: one social class is
>>dependent upon another for access to the means of production, and hence is
>>subject to a vast spectrum of coercive, alienating and demeaning 
>>To get the picture one needs the history of class conflict, the anecdotal
>>accounts of workplace indignities, the Blue Books, etc.  But what you
>>certainly DON'T need are Marx's labor-value accounting (or Sraffa prices, 
>>that matter).
>> >===== Original Message From Gil Skillman <gskillman@mail.wesleyan.edu> 
>> >Gary, you write, among other things,
>> >
>> >
>> >>What insights are these, that cannot be derivable from Sraffa's model? 
>> >>workers are exploited? Nope: I've got two eyes, and I read the papers
>> >>(Walmart, anyone?); I know workers are exploited and I don't need Marx's
>> >>labor
>> >>value analysis to see that.  Sure, you can define exploitation as Marx 
>> >>from which it follows that you can't measure it without his value
>> >>but definitions are ultimately arbitrary, and there are other ways to
>> define
>> >>exploitation.
>> >
>> >I'm curious as to how you'd propose defining exploitation without 
>> >to embodied labor time; is it anything like Roemer's proposed
>> >generalization of Marx's notion, e.g.?
>> >
>> >Gil
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>Anyway, in the end, using such a value-loaded word as
>> >>"exploitation" to describe a social process cannot help but be
>> ideological.
>> >>don't doubt that there are contexts in which some interesting empirical
>> >>regularities can be exposed by looking at economic processes through the
>> >>of Marx's vlaue categories.  But I don't see that these categories are
>> >>necessary to provide an understanding of the most fundamental
>> >>processes--those
>> >>relating to the determination of distribution, choice of technique, pace 
>> >>accumulation, etc. For these sorts of issues, Sraffa's framework is
>> >>for all the reasons Steedman mentions.
>> >>
>> >>All the best,
>> >>
>> >>Gary

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Sep 06 2002 - 17:17:38 EDT