
Some workers may work in worse conditions, but all workers are exploited
The word “exploitation” is often used to describe exceptional situations where a group of people are particularly vulnerable or a boss particularly ruthless.
The legacies of colonialism have led to worse working conditions in some parts of the world. Racism and sexism also structure the labour market, pushing black people and women workers into more dangerous, lower paid and more insecure jobs.
Socialists, of course, rage against these inequalities while seeking to build solidarity between different groups of workers.
But for Karl Marx, exploitation is not the exception—it is the rule. All bosses, whether benevolent or ruthless, exploit workers. And that exploitation is central to the whole system.
Exploitation is hidden. It appears that we go to work voluntarily and that we are paid for our labour. But if it’s all fair and equal, where do profits come from?
Far from being “fair”, the exchange of labour for a wage rests on a fundamental inequality. The capitalists have control of all the tools, raw materials, factories and offices.
Workers have little choice but to go to work for them if they can. When bosses hire workers, they buy the workers’ ability to work, their “labour power” as Marx described it.
People’s capacity to work depends on them being able to get enough food, clothes, shelter and rest to be fit enough to turn up to work each day and to put in enough hard graft.
So bosses pay workers just enough to cover rent or a mortgage, food and clothing—and perhaps a little extra to spend on leisure. What counts as “enough” depends on the social conditions of a particular society, on what people have fought for and won.
But although labour power is bought just like any other commodity, there is one vital difference. Labour creates more value than it costs to keep workers fit for work.
For example, say it takes roughly three hours’ work a day to cover the daily cost of a worker’s food, clothes, shelter and so on. However, workers don’t clock off after three hours. They are there for eight hours a day or longer.
This unpaid labour is the source of the bosses’ profits, or what Marx called “surplus value”.
For Marx, therefore, exploitation is the bosses paying workers less than they produce. The rate of exploitation doesn’t depend on how little or much you get paid—although of course the bosses try to get away with paying us as little as possible.
Even if a worker is on a relatively high wage, they are still being exploited because the value of what they produce is far more than the value the capitalist pays them in wages.
The capitalists are not the wealth or job creators—they have accumulated their riches by stealing what others have produced.
Because capitalism is a ruthlessly competitive system, bosses are constantly looking for ways to increase the rate of exploitation of their workforce in order to boost profits.
That is why our bosses are always trying to make us work longer hours for less money. The pressure from management means that workers are pushed to resist increased exploitation.
This is the problem for the capitalists. As car manufacturer Henry Ford said, “Why is it every time I ask for a pair of hands, they come with a brain attached?”
Workers tend to look at the car the boss drives, the house the manager lives in and rightly think they and their families deserve more.
There are constant struggles as workers push back, fighting against low pay and cuts in holiday and sick pay. If they win some of these battles, it gives workers the confidence and strength to win more. Strikes expose who really creates the wealth in society, whose labour is indispensable.
Workers can resist exploitation, but to eradicate it altogether requires a fundamental challenge to capitalism. In a socialist society, the majority could take control of surplus value and use it to benefit the whole of society.
Without struggle, hope can dissipate
Has the Soviet Union discredited the idea?
The right claims that cultural Marxism is a project to subvert Western society
Do democracy and centralism contradict each other?