Exploitation of surplus value

https://www.reddit.com/r/ABoringDystopia/comments/t37ocb/letting_the_cat_out_of_the_bag_from_united_auto/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century

Exploitation of surplus value, as Marx calls it. Along with Alienation and class, it’s one of the main standpoints in his works. explain this

• Great question — and one that sits at the center of economic and political debate. • Supporters of capitalism (including economists, political theorists, and entrepreneurs) do acknowledge some of Marx’s concerns, but they offer counterarguments based on efficiency, freedom, opportunity, and innovation. • Here’s how they respond to Marx’s three core critiques:

1. Surplus Value and Exploitation Marx’s claim: • Workers produce more value than they are paid — the capitalist extracts the surplus as profit. This is exploitation. Capitalist defense: • Voluntary exchange: Workers freely choose to work for a wage, and employers take a risk (e.g. investing capital, managing operations). Profit is a reward for that risk, coordination, and innovation — not theft. • Mutual benefit: Even if the capitalist gains more, the worker still benefits (gets income, stability, etc.). If both sides benefit, many argue it’s not “exploitation.” • Market determines wages: Wages are not arbitrarily low — they’re set by supply and demand. If workers are underpaid, they can go elsewhere. Competition can drive wages up. • Productivity matters: Capital investment (tools, machines, training) often raises worker productivity, so the capitalist isn’t just profiting from labor alone — it’s also from better organization and tech.

2. Alienation Marx’s claim: • Work under capitalism is dehumanizing and disconnected from creativity or fulfillment. Capitalist defense: • Freedom of choice: People can choose careers, start businesses, or pursue creative fields. Capitalism doesn’t force alienation — it’s one possible outcome, not a universal one. • Job diversity: Modern capitalist economies offer a wide range of jobs, including creative and meaningful work. Not everyone is stuck in factory-like conditions anymore. • Entrepreneurship: Capitalism allows people to be their own boss, build things, and innovate — a form of self-expression and autonomy that contradicts alienation. • Improving conditions: Labor laws, unions, and regulations (often within capitalist systems) have improved worker experiences and reduced alienation over time.

3. Class Struggle Marx’s claim: • Capitalism creates a class system where the rich exploit the poor, and power is concentrated in the hands of capital owners. Capitalist defense: • Social mobility: People can rise from poverty to wealth through education, hard work, or entrepreneurship. Class isn’t fixed — it’s more fluid than in feudal systems. • Wealth creation: Capitalism raises living standards over time. Even if inequality exists, most people are better off than in non-capitalist systems (longer life expectancy, access to goods, etc.). • Democracy & regulation: Capitalist societies often pair markets with democracy — giving people political power to regulate excesses (e.g. taxes on the rich, welfare programs). • Alternatives failed: Critics point to the failures of Marxist regimes (like the USSR or Maoist China), arguing that attempts to abolish class led to authoritarianism, poverty, and repression.

Summary Table Marxist Critique Capitalist Defense Surplus = exploitation Voluntary contracts; mutual gain; risk justifies reward Alienation Job choice, entrepreneurship, improved working conditions Class conflict Social mobility, wealth creation, democratic checks on inequality

• Capitalism’s defenders don’t say the system is perfect — but they argue that it’s the best available option, especially when combined with regulation and social programs to address inequality. • Let me know if you want the social democratic response (a mix of capitalism with stronger public protections), or modern critiques like Thomas Piketty’s or stakeholder capitalism.

Yeah, a lot of Marx’s criticisms of the premises and inherent contradictions of the capitalist mode of production are pretty straightforward and usually accurate.

The problem is that much of his conception of a socialist alternative is not quite throughly thought out, and has been correctly critiqued in the years since his activity. Plus, his conception of history, while being interesting for its grounding in materialism and endeavor to study society in a scientific manner, was still pretty flawed. The idea that history is “guided” and is moving toward any particular “end” is not popular with philosophers these days. Not Marx’s version nor Hegel’s version.

While captialist economists aren’t always bastions of objectivity, it is worth noting that many accept Marx’s criticisms but still conclude that that captialism, in at least some configuration, has proven the best known system for reducing the problem of scarcity in a practical fashion.

Kind of like how plenty of political philosophers accept many of Plato’s criticisms of democracy but still don’t support his description of a “better” republic.

I will admit that ideological hostility towards communism has sometimes served to blind western economists and politicians to the possibly of deeply examining Marxist critiques, unfortunately.

Upvote 13

Downvote

Share Share

u/GoblinoidToad avatar GoblinoidToad • 3y ago Kapital is many things but straightforward is not one of them. He’s trying to base his price theory in Hegel inspired dialetics, hence the framing of things as contradictions. It’s not separate from his conception of history.