Re: which marxism? which definition of exploitation?

----- Original Message -----
From: gernot kohler
> the recent discussion re: which marxism? was/is very interesting. in this
> context i have a question re: definition of exploitation. in my studies of
> unequal exchange i observed that apparently many marxists cannot and will
> not consider "unequal exchange" as a form of exploitation. i understand
that
> "unequal exchange" is not covered under the honest-to-marxness concept of
> exploitation (which is closely linked to wage labor/surplus value).

Yes, and many of them have "orthodox" blinders on.  (more below)

 > on the
> other hand, any leftist observer of international and world-system
economic
> relations cannot but see that "something of an exploitative nature" is
going
> on between rich countries and poor countries, center and periphery.
> Emmanuel, Amin et al. called this "unequal exchange". Cakmak speaks of
> "world technological rent". wouldn't it be time to subsume this under the
> general concept of exploitation? this enlarged concept of exploitation
would
> have two (or more) subconcepts -- (a) narrow definition of exploitation a
la
> Marx; (b) "unequal exchange", "world technologcial rent" and similar, also
> (c) no name -- e.g., when a Canadian company changes the status of a
person
> from employee to subcontractor it effectively increases the exploitedness
of
> that person, while liberating that person from being exploited in the
> honest-to-marxness sense. (b) and (c) were no significant issues at Marx's
> time, just like birth control pills were no issue at the time of Moses,
> Jesus, Mohamed and other major thinkers. From a WS perspective, an
enlarged
> concept of exploitation appears called for. what do others think about
that?
>
> gernot kohler

Why "blinders" above?  Because Marx himself, as Emmanuel notes, was aware of
the issue and wrote, for instance:

"And even if we consider Ricardo's theory...three days of one country's
labor may be exchanged for a single day of another country's... In this case
the rich country exploits the poor one, even if the latter gains through the
exchange..."

This insight was, as we know, developed into a theory of unequal exchange
(UE) in Emmanuel's scheme.

However, I think many, including Emmanuel, have neglected the role of
markets as among the mechanisms that sustain and deepen UE (and the division
of labor that presupposed UE).  But here too are "blinders" -- because to
discuss the market mechanisms is often considered by the orthodox class
Marxists as tantamount to neo-Smithian or neo-classical analysis.   Yet,
Marx himself noted that market competition was among the forces of the world
market that affected prices, including that of wages.

Peripheral class relations and neo-imperialism do not fully explain (and
often do not try to explain) how surplus value is sent to the core.
Further, one of the major problems is explaining why core commodities are
higher priced (and of higher value).

It seems to me that the key to working on this issue, which I'm trying to do
in an article near completion, is to show how specific forms of class
exploitation (surplus value extraction) historically and logically enter
into UE.   Why are wages lower in one area than another?  I suggest that the
combination of world market competition in the sphere of circulation, and
truncated labor markets help explain the differences.  Of course, such an
explanation requires first acknowledging the states, imperialism, and
neo-imperialism in its many forms and mechanisms which contributed to the
modern division of labor.

That is, the core monopoly over the most profitable activities is partly a
market monopoly based on high entry costs.   P capitalists cannot afford
those costs and so get stuck with the less profitable/remunerative
activities, which are in part less profitable due to the competition arising
from low entry costs that bring down profitability and, especially among the
many less- and non-skilled workers, bring down wages.  IW says something
like this here and there.  But he doesn't examine on the production side of
exploitation (though he does "recognize" the forms of labor and struggles
that create surplus in the periphery).

As Amin stresses, core productivity is also key, though I would add, not
always.  The issue of productivity is -- was ? -- central with respect to
mass manufacture, which is increasingly done in the periphery.  The labor
aristocracy (e.g. genetic or computer chip engineers) and petty capitalists
(e.g. doctors, lawyers, etc.) cannot be measured by the same yardstick of
productivity as one measures manufacturing.  How productive are Microsoft's
engineers?  It doesn't matter: what counts in this case is the techno and
market monopoly MS possess.   And the labor aristocracy in general?
Credentialism helps to explain this in part, but how do they get
credentials?  They too monopolize wealth and the access to wealth-creating
activities within core areas and via the truncated world labor market.  We
all know the cliche, "wealth begets wealth."

Also, there is the big question of whether or not the wealth of the core
rests primarily upon the class relations and extraction of surplus from the
periphery.   Considering that core imports from the P amount to only about
20% of the core's total trade, one wonders.  However, I question whether
that 20% is a price measurement rather than a quantity measurement.   It
would be very useful to have comparative facts on the quantity of core
imports from the P as a % of total quantity of core trade.  Probably not
hard to find.  Anyone know of web site where such inf. exists?