Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!laura
From: laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: What is socialism? (on exploitation)
Message-ID: <5145@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 2-Mar-85 08:30:39 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.5145
Posted: Sat Mar  2 08:30:39 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 2-Mar-85 08:30:39 EST
References: <351@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 40

I am going to try to distill a somewhat shorter definition of
exploitation from Himmelweit's article. Then I am going to take a
closer look at it.

When you reach a point in history  where it is possible to
produce more than one consumes, there is a surplus. At this point
in time you arbitrarily divide the people who have property
from the people who do not. You recognise the work done by the
latter and call it labour. From this inequality you conclude that
those who labour are exploited by those who have property -- but this
amounts to a description of the fact that not everybody has property.

Hmmm. I sell labour for money and use the money to buy food. I think I
am back to being exploited again. Any definition which produces the
conclusion that I am exploited I think needs to be reformulated, because
it must not take into consideration something. The only consideration
I can use to get me out of the ``exploited'' class is to not consider what
I am doing as labour.

Contract Computer Programming is interesting that way. I do a fair amount
of typing (but negligable compared to the typing of a good secretary, say)
but most of the effort I put in and am paid for is thinking, and being
creative. This is a far cry removed from ditch-digging. Getting paid for
thinking is what attracted me to the field in the first place -- as soon
as I discovered that I could make money programming, I quit my 2 jobs
and concentrated on programming..

Now, if you do not consider thinkig as labour, then you can say that
I eat despite not labouring, and, considering that the food I eat is
property, calss me as an exploiter. (if you don't consider the food
I eat property, who do you classify me?) But
the usefulness of such a definition is questionable. I think that
my thinking is valuable, indeed more valuable than ditch-digging.

The definition seems to leave thinking as a no-op. Surely it should be
worth something in a socialist society -- but I don't see the definition
accommodating it.

Laura Creighton
utzoo!laura