I have a great boss for a small company. Last year we got pay rises and a reduction in hours at the same time. Don’t feel I’m being exploited, it’s quite the opposite as works comes second to our health.
I’ve lost track of how much sick time I’ve had due to mental health etc. we are not giving targets or micromanaged or anything like that.
The problem is that under capitalism, which is a competitive ecosystem, over the short term those qualities are selected against, and it constantly, naturally, seeks continuous vertical integration which necessarily puts the wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands over time.
Now you can claim this can be prevented with regulation, but in practice that will only slow the process since even slow centralization of wealth leads to people with vastly disproportionate wealth, and therefore influence over regulatory policies, which they will degrade over time (once again because the corporations which do deregulate themselves will be more selected for in a naturally selective ecosystem than those which fail to do so).
Capitalism as a system basically rewards the most unethical practices in it’s ecosystem with more power.
Under capitalism, it is almost by definition. Glad you’re having a better time than the rest of us, but your personal anecdote is irrelevant to society at large.
You would not be employed if it wasn’t profitable. Which also means the surplus value of your labor, above and beyond what you’re being compensated for, is going to your employer. That’s exploitation. It’s mandatory in most employment under capitalist economics.
There is never going to be a 1:1 ratio between labour value and compensation. Even in a non-profit employee-owned cooperative, there will be external costs that will have to funded from somewhere.
It becomes exploitation when that ratio becomes disproportionate and the ownership starts extracting more than their fair share. Capitalism definitely does nothing to discourage this, but it’s not a mandatoy feature.
Even in a non-profit employee-owned cooperative, there will be external costs that will have to [be] funded from somewhere.
That somewhere being reduced labor compensation no matter what, meaning the labor is just worth that much less. That doesn’t entitle an “owner” to jack shit.
It becomes exploitation when that ratio becomes disproportionate and the ownership starts extracting more than their fair share.
Their fair share is nothing. A disproportionate ratio is any ratio greater than 0. No labor should be “owned” by anyone not performing it. There should not be “ownership” involved. Organizational leaders, sure. And they should also just be regular laborers, paid in the same manner.
I understand the surplus value argument and I’m not dismissing it, within that framework you’re technically correct. But reducing all employment to exploitation by definition flattens a meaningful distinction between a worker being genuinely mistreated and one who isn’t.
My point wasn’t that capitalism is perfect or that my experience is universal. It was that employment isn’t inherently exploitative in the lived sense, conditions, power dynamics, and how surplus is distributed all matter. A framework that calls everything exploitation equally makes it harder to identify and fight actual exploitation where it’s causing real harm.
Working isn’t necessarily being exploited though.
I have a great boss for a small company. Last year we got pay rises and a reduction in hours at the same time. Don’t feel I’m being exploited, it’s quite the opposite as works comes second to our health.
I’ve lost track of how much sick time I’ve had due to mental health etc. we are not giving targets or micromanaged or anything like that.
The problem is that under capitalism, which is a competitive ecosystem, over the short term those qualities are selected against, and it constantly, naturally, seeks continuous vertical integration which necessarily puts the wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands over time.
Now you can claim this can be prevented with regulation, but in practice that will only slow the process since even slow centralization of wealth leads to people with vastly disproportionate wealth, and therefore influence over regulatory policies, which they will degrade over time (once again because the corporations which do deregulate themselves will be more selected for in a naturally selective ecosystem than those which fail to do so).
Capitalism as a system basically rewards the most unethical practices in it’s ecosystem with more power.
Under capitalism, it is almost by definition. Glad you’re having a better time than the rest of us, but your personal anecdote is irrelevant to society at large.
You would not be employed if it wasn’t profitable. Which also means the surplus value of your labor, above and beyond what you’re being compensated for, is going to your employer. That’s exploitation. It’s mandatory in most employment under capitalist economics.
There is never going to be a 1:1 ratio between labour value and compensation. Even in a non-profit employee-owned cooperative, there will be external costs that will have to funded from somewhere.
It becomes exploitation when that ratio becomes disproportionate and the ownership starts extracting more than their fair share. Capitalism definitely does nothing to discourage this, but it’s not a mandatoy feature.
That somewhere being reduced labor compensation no matter what, meaning the labor is just worth that much less. That doesn’t entitle an “owner” to jack shit.
Their fair share is nothing. A disproportionate ratio is any ratio greater than 0. No labor should be “owned” by anyone not performing it. There should not be “ownership” involved. Organizational leaders, sure. And they should also just be regular laborers, paid in the same manner.
I understand the surplus value argument and I’m not dismissing it, within that framework you’re technically correct. But reducing all employment to exploitation by definition flattens a meaningful distinction between a worker being genuinely mistreated and one who isn’t.
My point wasn’t that capitalism is perfect or that my experience is universal. It was that employment isn’t inherently exploitative in the lived sense, conditions, power dynamics, and how surplus is distributed all matter. A framework that calls everything exploitation equally makes it harder to identify and fight actual exploitation where it’s causing real harm.