Therefore profit can only occur through some form of dishonesty or unfair exploitation. Thus there is no such thing as a fair days wage for a fair days work.
The way in which a Marxist would approach this takes us back to the idea of labour as a commodity and the central distinction between use value and exchange value.
Use value is the value of a commodity to the person who uses it, i.e. the pleasure, say; someone would get from drinking a couple of pints of beer. Exchange value would be what that beer would be exchanged for via the media of money.
The definition of a commodity is that the producer produces it for the purpose of exchange rather than use. The exchange value is determined by the amount of socially necessary labour expended on the production of the commodity. Labour power is a commodity; it has a use value and an exchange value.
The exchange value is what is needed to ensure the production of the product (the wages that have to be supplied in order to make the labour force work). Thus it has to be sufficient to enable workers to feed, clothe and house themselves and enable the next generation of workers to be raised, educated and so on. There are two components of this; an absolute minimum needed to keep the worker alive, and this plus a little bit extra depending on what is deemed acceptable to society at large.
Thus over the past the years it has become socially acceptable to pay very low wages at the bottom end of the market, in some cases close to a
subsistence wage, and at the other end to pay very high wages, many times above subsistence level. The use value of the labour force can be explained quite simply, If you were an employer the only point in employing workers would be if they were use value to you, i.e. the value of what they produce for you is greater than what you have to pay them.
The difference between the two is surplus value, i.e. the profit gained by the employer. This is a Marxist definition of exploitation, however Marxists
would argue that this is not a result of unscrupulous employers, but is built into the wage-labour relationship itself, into the buying and selling of labour.
This can be clearly recognised through the following example of my working life. As I work part-time in order to gain a wage, I am working for my employer’s profit, I am producing surplus value, and thus I am being exploited. If this were not the case then I would not be employed, thus no one is paid the value of his or her work. This therefore evokes a major class conflict between the employed and the employer, traditionally known as the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
Alienation, as well as exploitation, is a natural condition in a capitalist society.
“Alienation is a state in which the environment we create takes on real solidity, comes to seem unchangeable-when it takes on what Luckas called second nature. The system we create acts back on us to form and control us, and it alienates from our own collective nature as beings who work together to transform our world and ourselves.” (Page 89, Classical Social Theory, Ian Craib).
Marx was concerned with the particular form of alienation brought about by capitalism, as mentioned previously he argued that labour itself becomes little more than a commodity, a thing bought or sold like any other object. The paradox is that the more the labourer produces, the cheaper his or her labour becomes; “With the increasing value of the world of things in direct proportion the devaluation of the world of men” (Marx 1844/1974: 107, cited in, Capitalism and Modern Social Theory).
The worker is, in the first place, alienated from his or her product. This is due to the advancement of capitalism and industrialisation, i.e. the introduction of mass production. An example of this would be say you were working in a factory producing cars, you would have no control over what you would be producing, and it would be impossible to distinguish between the work you had done and the work anybody has done or could do. Again the same paradox is at work, the more you produce, the less control, the less power you have.
The alienation of the worker from his or her product takes a number of distinct forms. The main dimensions of Marx’s argument of alienation are as follows;
- The worker lacks control over the disposal of his products, since what he or she produces is appropriated by others (the employers), so he does not benefit from it.
- The worker is alienated in the work task itself. The work task does not offer any intrinsic satisfactions, which make it possible for the worker to develop freely his mental and physical energies, thus it is not something which comes from his or her inner life. This is due to
the fact that work is imposed by force, and by external circumstances alone. Thus work becomes a means to an end rather than an end in itself.
The following example helps to give one an idea of what Marx is suggesting by looking upon the work of a student. If the student is interested in the course they undergoing and they wish to learn, writing an essay would be work, which comes from the inside, they are motivated from the inside. If a student decides to take a course simply to gain the qualification at the end, then it is a different matter entirely, there is nothing of themselves in the work, the work becomes a burden, and thus, as mentioned above becomes a means to end. Marx believed this to be a permanent condition of capitalism.
3. Since Marx saw labour as a definitive aspect of our species being , he believed that we are therefore alienated from the species and co-workers. We cannot recognise ourselves in any of those around us, we do not see fellow humans but people who might be competing with us for jobs and scarce resources, and we see other people as potential threats.
All in all, it is clear that work in a capitalist society, in order to function, in order for profit to be made, the work force must be exploited, thus your are never paid enough for whatever you do. As if you were paid the value of your work there would be no profit. Also due to industrialisation, and mass production alienation is a natural phenomena in any capitalist society, as the aspect of experimentation and freedom to express oneself in the work force is removed.
Bibliography;
-
Craib, I, Classical Social Theory, Oxford, 1997.
-
Andersen, H, & Kaspersen, L. B, Classical & Modern Social Theory, Blackwell Publishing, 2000.
-
Giddens, A, Capitalism & Modern Social Theory, Cambridge University Press, 1971.
-
Haralambos, M, & Holborn, M, Sociology, Themes & Perspectives, fifth edition, Collins, 2000.