Value and Exploitation: A counterfactual approach

Abstract

A deconstruction of the Marxian theories of value and exploitation is attempted by arguing, first, that the labour theory of value is logically and methodologically inconsistent as a basis for a theory of capitalist exploitation and, second, that it is founded on an ontology of the social being which is not plausibly justified. A counterfactual model economy is then built, called Utopia, in which the workers receive the whole net output while commodities exchange at labour values. This model is used as a benchmark to evaluate a capitalist economy where commodities exchange at production prices and workers are exploited. It is shown that the factor of exploitation can be expressed as a ratio between the labour commanded by, and the labour contained in, the net output, or between the value added produced in a capitalist economy and that produced in Utopia. The resulting theory of exploitation entails a weak ontology of the social being, expressing a worker's point of view.

4. Values and Prices

“…Rather interesting is the factor of exploitation, 1+e c =(L+L * )/L, which is equal to the inverse of the wage share in net output. It is a ratio between the labour commanded by the net output and that used to produce it (Screpanti, 2003). In the presence of exploitation, this factor is greater than 1 as "the value of the total product can […] buy more living labour than is contained in it" (Marx 1997, 153).…”

2. Abstract Labour as a Historical Reality

“…8 The labour theory of value turns out to be of some utility after all. It can be seen as a counterfactual (Screpanti 2003) implicitly used by workers in collective decision-making; when they struggle to reduce exploitation, they are fighting against capitalism. A lessening of exploitation implies a cutback in capitalist power.…”

Social Class and Income Inequality in the United States: Ownership, Authority, and Personal Income Distribution from 1980 to 2010

“…The theoretical framework guiding this analysis builds on these prior approaches, as well as others (e.g., Roemer 1982; Screpanti 2003; Tomaskovic-Devey 2014), by defining exploitation and domination—the conditions that give rise to antagonistic interests and thus promote conflict between social classes—in counterfactual terms. Specifically, exploitation and domination are defined in terms of counterfactual comparisons between feasible alternative enterprises.…”