When did you realize that only productive laborers who actually contribute in the creation of capital are exploited? Only those who peform surplus labor above and beyond the limit of necessary labor can be exploited for these people actually produce value. The unproductive laborer produces no value, he produces no surplus – he is not exploited. Exploitation is when a surplus is appropriated by another who did not produce it. No surplus production = no exploitation. These people are part of the same subsumed class process as police, bureaucrats and other unproductive laborers. Like the unproductive capitalist who lives off rent or interest, they do not contribute to production.
Purge this liberal definition of exploitation from your mind, comrades.
the answer is to reform the system and get new jobs, but that does not mean their current situation cannot benefit a revolution, would the USSR be established if not for the mutiny by the tsarist navy? or large sections of the russian military?
Parker Rogers
Whether a teacher is exploited or not depends on whether a given teacher is employed by a capitalist with profit in mind (productively) or not (unproductively). It’s Orthodox Marxism or revisionist and Marxism is a science
Isaac Jenkins
Not exploited apparently lol
Ryder Watson
Not all revisionism is bad you realize that right? The concept of differentiating socialism from communism (as done by Lenin) is revisionism. And there's nothing wrong with it. This type of revisionism is healthy and useful in evolving marxism to become a near-perfect system capable of expanding and surviving.
Cameron Williams
The production of surplus value is exploitation, yes. And there are unproductive laborers who do not produce surplus value, but rather get a cut from this surplus to perform socially necessary functions (police, military, etc). HOWEVER, I would not say that these are the majority of people. Also, these people are still proletarian, so they still have revolutionary potential.
Juan Foster
No exploitation
Jose Gray
Exactly, which means it is NOT a dogma, it has to change when evidence contradicts it, that is pretty much the definition of science. Marxism isn't a religion, it is a science, and science is not static.
Liam Torres
Meant to reply to
Nicholas Anderson
Don't listen to these retards, imagine only using the marxist definition of everything for everything as literally as possible. You can't live normally this way.
Caleb Ward
Being profitable or not isn’t what determines productive or unproductive labor to Marx. I’m not sure yet if I think the distinction is that important or if it just confuses people for no reason, but as far as I understand Marx essentially sets the activity of production into tiers based on whether what is being produced is supporting the reproduction of the working class, or whether it goes towards capitalist consumption. If it goes toward the capitalist class, it is unproductive and essentially derived from the exploitation of the wider working class. There is an additional attribute I’m not as certain of that is thrown around a lot, which is whether or not you’re producing an object. The logic being something like the accumulation of these objects represents social wealth that endures, whereas a service is a drain on labor time that gets used up the instant it is rendered. The usage of the terms “productive” and “unproductive” here can be called “purely scientific”, but since they seem to apply both to the clearly derogatory, parasitic consumption of the bourgeoisie as well as people who don’t produce THINGS, it seems easy to interpret as a slight against what may be necessary work to reproduce the working class (being a teacher, for instance). So if that is the case, there should probably be a different term for the two instances.
Cameron King
Marxism has not been contradicted and the discarding of scientific terminology as employed by Marx whenever it upsets your picture of reality is revisionist and opportunist to the core.
Benjamin Torres
An unproductive laborer can not exist, for he will be fired by his boss. Only labourers which produce above the value which they are paid are usefull to a capitalist.
A laborer, a proletarian, is someone who works as a wage slave in the contex of capitalist production. People who labour outside of capitalism, such as housewives, are not labourers in the sense you were talking about. Someone who works outside of the capitalist mode of production performing unpaid labour are not paid at all, they are not workers in the only usefull marxist usage of the word.
Also fucking hell english has retarded translations, truly a frankenstein creole invented by idiots.
Justin Hughes
The problem here is OP is saying non-productive labour is not exploitative, which seems totally derogatory. I admit services do not produce commodities, that is a fact, but to say a waitress, for example, isn't exploited on a daily basis seems outright insulting and like a total misuse of modern language.
Robert Cox
They are not exploited in the Marxist sense of the term, this does not mean that they are “living it up” and are not poor. They are non-exploited proles
Congratulations! OP here realized a LOT of jobs are useless. But OP is wrong on certain matters. I agree wholeheartedly with ,>>2801198,>>2801202, and
Isaiah Long
Connect the dots nigger, unproductive laborers don’t produce any surplus value to appropriate, therefore they cannot be exploited
Lincoln Fisher
According to the Physiocratic school, only farming is truly productive. Think about it: Without food, we would all be dead. Clearly, the capitalists are dependent on the existence of food production. Without food, profit would be zero. So, would you say then that only people working on farms are exploited? That's how you argue. It's a non sequitur.
Ryan Butler
...
Levi Baker
Guess how I know you haven't read Marx.
Justin Morales
The term "exploitation" in the Marxist sense is not a synonym for "being treated like shit", like it does in common modern usage.
Isaiah Howard
that sounds like you found the definition of bullshit jobs.
Do you not realize what a daft discussion this is? OP is like Academic Agent, Marxist edition: >There is a word that has several meanings, you say X in the sense of meaning A. However X can also mean B. X in the sense of B doesn't apply to Q, therefore you should never say that X applies to Q. Academic Agent's argument: OP: >There is this word exploitation. You use that in the sense of some wretched existence of somebody who would rather do something else and who likely would live a more happy life under different property arrangements and therefore you think these people are on your side. However, if I use that in the meaning of work that surplus value is siphoned off from, these people are not exploited, therefore they are not on your side.
Joshua Cook
What the fuck kind of definition of "exploited" are you using?
Justin James
Marxism needs a huge language revamp for 21st century English, it is like the number one stumbling block for getting into Marxism, like when some retard thinks the labour theory of "value" means a person can spend a hundred hours making a ball of mud therefore making it more "valuable".
Aiden Lopez
you mean to tell me the statue i made completely out of human feces will not make me the richest person in a marxist society? you know how much time i spend on that shit?
Tyler Morales
That's why I mention it, you kids need to stop being so literal. Sure, by marxist definitions, teachers aren't exploited, but try telling that to a teacher who works his ass off to teach kids that don't even listen to him and earns a shit wage that. You don't win the proletariat that way.
Brayden Diaz
Fuck off with your liberalism
Sebastian Wilson
Lmao alright nigger have fun by telling proles who's opressed and who's not.
Jose Scott
This is not what Marx was saying and is ABSOLUTELY retarded. If you are making money for a Capitalist and they are paying you wages, you are exploited. This is the central, physical relationship occuring between the proletariat and the Capitalists. I can not believe how goddamn stupid Zig Forums is. Is it irrational for me to be angry that you are all so damn retarded? You all really think Marx didn't believe teachers and so on were exploited yet he NEVER explicitly mentioned it? Fuck my ass you all are so dumb it loops around to genius. Only a genius could so expertly avoid the obvious correct conclusion to believe in the esoteric and stupid conclusion. Thinking is like liquor to you idiots, but that is too generous.
Eli Sanchez
If teachers were exploited Marx would have said so, retard
Justin Parker
I mean fuck, I just went to the catalog and I see this shit "wage labor is not exploitation". As Marx defines wages, he defines them very explicitly as the money someone is paid out of what they produce. Intellectual wasteland.
Jaxson Wilson
To be fair almost all of us were calling OP an idiot.
Then the marxist definition of "exploitation" is useless.
Easton Parker
Shipping is a form of production that effects a transformation of the commodity's location.
Colton Walker
Although teachers do not directly produce surplus value, they are doing an form of reproductive labor which is necessary for labor-power to REPRODUCE itself (workers regardless if they are doing specialized skilled labor or not need to be taught literacy, basic maths etc) hence they are still within the circuit of capitalist production.
What's next? Janitors are not exploited because they don't directly produce surplus value???
Jace Brooks
This is what happens when brainlets trained at Youtube U try to rebutt one of the smartest theorists to ever live.
Nathan Murphy
I am not sure what you mean, are you against what I am saying or for it?
John Roberts
Lol I am supporting what you said. Marx didn't make this absurd distinction between factory worker and factory sweeper.
Eli Lopez
Wrong, that is outside of the circuit. Even commodities leave the circuit specifically WHEN they are consumed to reproduce labor power. Just because some labor is outside the productive sector, doesn't mean it isn't valuable to society.
Exploitation is a combination of two things: 1. Performing free labor. 2. Free labor being crystallized in some commodity or otherwise being sold at its value by the boss man. Teachers are usually only in the first camp, selling their labor power and performing free labor. Janitors on the other hand, are usually in both camps: janitors are directly engaged in maintenance of the means of production, IE the cleaning and tidying of the building and grounds of the workplace, which in and of itself is a MOP. The value of the janitor's labor goes into whatever commodities are produced in the building.
There are a bunch of fucking stupid trolls posting ITT who have never read Marx making claims about "who is a real prole" to push people's buttons.
Robert Phillips
Says fucking who? Restaurant workers are directly involved in production of food. Transporting things is a form of production. Waitresses transport the food.
Nicholas Hill
It's not orthodox Marxism, it's brainlets who have never read Capital making shit up.
once you realize the capitalist, by allocating capital, takes a personal risk much greater than laborers, you're two steps away from taking the redpill on capitalism. Keep reading fren, you'll get there eventually :-)
