George G writes:
>I wouldn't mind your comments on this particular issue related to Marxist
>economics.
>
>In a discussion on the situation of the working class under the neo-liberal
>push towards globalization and the effect that this is having on the
>people's of the developing countries. It was pointed out that not only is
>modern capitalism exploiting its workers but is also "super exploiting"
>immigrant workers at home (western industrialized countries) and women in
>the workplace who suffer a double burden of exploitation at work and then
>at home with the second unpaid shift.
>
>Is this an accurate term? I believe workers can be exploited to various
>degrees under capitalism but either you are exploited or you are not. As
>amatter of fact I also believe that in strict Marxist terms, you will find
>that the worker on the production line of General Motors or Ford making
>automobiles for over $20.00 cdn/hr. produces more surplus value than the
>underpaid worker flipping burgers at McDonald's and is therefore exploited
>more. Is the autoworker then "super exploited?"
>
>I don't think so, they are just exploited at a higher rate. I understand
>the concept that immigrant workers and women in the workplace face
>particular and special problems but I don't think you can use the term
>"super exploitation" to describe it properly.
It really depends on how you use the term. It might be useful to describe
the heightened exploitation of groups such as women, immigrants and other
oppressed minorities, in the sense that not only are they being exploited
as all wage-slaves are exploited, but they are also having the price they
get for paid for their labour-power pressed below what should be normal for
that sector (women are expected to survive by living on a partner's or
parent's wages, immigrants are just skinned because of their weak
bargaining position). This is separate from the issue of double burdens on
women, which involves gender discrimination and the whole issue of
"invisible" infrastructural production of a new generation of labour-power,
where the costs are silently passed on to an oppressed group.
Otherwise it's not easy to say whether more surplus value is being
extracted from the car worker or the hamburger jockey. I'd say that since
high labour input usually equals greater value, then more value is produced
in the service sectors -- but few people in those sectors see any of it,
whether they're capitalists or workers, because most of it is siphoned off
by the operation of the equalization of profits to sectors with a higher
composition of capital -- what I've previously referred to as the value
pump from services and petty agriculture over to high tech and low labour
sectors.
Cheers,
Hugh
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
