Emmanuel Renault / Wang Yue (Trans.): Origin of Marx's Concept of Exploitation and Its Contemporary Value
The concept of exploitation was not invented by Marx, but was borrowed by him from the Saint-Simonians. Driven by the theme of "the exploitation of man by man," Saint-Simonianism interpreted the evolution of society, and as early as 1848, they gained attention by using the end of such exploitation as a political slogan. Yet there is no doubt that it is precisely due to Marx's interpretation that the concept of exploitation has become a pivotal concept not only in leftist political discourse but also in social theory and political economy. At the same time, the concept has lost much of its theoretical luster; although it remains a common term in critical social theory, it has either been dismissed by shifts in philosophy and the social sciences or is frequently regarded as theoretically obsolete because it can no longer accurately grasp the salient features of today's world. In Western theoretical circles, some economists disparage the theory of value presupposed by the Marxist concept of capitalist exploitation, while some philosophers and sociologists are convinced that the concept is characterized by an untenable economic reductionism, thereby giving way to theories of inequality and structural domination. At the level of empirical research, some argue that current forms of profit production, as well as the production and reproduction of structural inequality, are so far removed from those analyzed by Marx that his concept of exploitation can no longer effectively perform the function expected of it. Further arguments suggest that contemporary class relations and forms of social domination are no longer as simple as described by Marxist theory. Faced with these objections, two general attitudes have emerged in the theoretical world: one is to abandon the use of this concept; the other is based on the conviction that contemporary society is characterized by the persistence of capitalist exploitation—where one part of the form of exploitation remains consistent with the past, while another part has been thoroughly renewed and enriched. This article adopts the second attitude, arguing for the necessity of the concept of exploitation primarily from two perspectives: defending it against criticisms and renewing the Marxist analysis of capitalist exploitation.
To highlight the specificity and richness of Marx's theory of exploitation, we must first return to the concept as elucidated by the Saint-Simonian school and its reformulation in the Communist Manifesto; second, analyze the different dimensions of the theory of exploitation developed in Capital; third, examine a series of possible objections to the theory; and fourth, propose the question of the relevance of exploitation theory to the analysis of the current stage of neoliberalism.
I. From Saint-Simonianism to the Communist Manifesto
It was not until the mid-19th century that the concept of exploitation acquired its current connotation. Prior to this, "exploitation" referred to "making something valuable" or "deriving benefit from something" within the context of agriculture, industry, or commerce. Today, this connotation can still be seen in the accounting concept of "operating surplus" (excédent d’exploitation). The Saint-Simonian school appears to have been the first to propose the idea of "the exploitation of man by man" rather than "man's exploitation of things," thereby causing the actor performing the exploitation to no longer be an "exploiter" of things (exploitant) but an "exploiter" of people (exploiteur). Simultaneously, the concept was imbued with a pejorative connotation.
Compared to Saint-Simon himself, who used the simple expression "exploitation of the globe" (l'exploitation du globe) only in a general sense, the Saint-Simonians truly developed the modern connotation of exploitation. In the two-volume Exposition of the Doctrine of Saint-Simon (L’exposition de la doctrine de Saint-Simon), the concept of "exploitation" is regarded as one of the fundamental concepts of Saint-Simonian philosophy, carrying equal weight with concepts such as "association" and "antagonism." In this text, the authors present a law of historical progress—namely, the law of the constant progress of association (progrès constant de l’association), manifested specifically in the process from the family to the city, from the city to the nation, and finally from the nation to universal association. The book argues that past history was characterized by antagonism, the most vivid forms of which were wars between families, cities, and nations; yet at the same time, they developed within association, and the current form is driven by competition. History, both past and present, is equally a history of exploitation, with slavery being the primitive form and serfdom a developmental stage. The Saint-Simonians also emphasized that exploitation persisted after the end of slavery and serfdom, and that property relations are the root of exploitation. Therefore, the solution lies in changing property relations (abolishing the right of inheritance and the state's appropriation of the means of production). In this sense, the prerequisite for universal association is the transcendence of the exploitation of man by man.
These Saint-Simonian propositions clearly found resonance in Marx, yet the theoretical divergences between them are equally evident. This is because the Saint-Simonian critique of exploitation still included a critique of "idlers" supported by "industrials" [1], and the dogma of the unity of the industrial world had not been entirely abandoned. In this context, the "industrials" were the subjects [2] being exploited. Although some discussions in the Exposition of the Doctrine of Saint-Simon already emphasized that the previously exploited industrials in turn exploited workers, it was not until the 1830s—following the formation and development of a republican form of Saint-Simonianism clustered around the journal Revue encyclopédique—that the contemporary form of the exploitation of man by man was interpreted as the exploitation of workers by industrials.
Marx expanded his discourse on "exploitation" as early as the period of writing The German Ideology (1845–1846). In this text, he quoted Saint-Simon's "exploitation of man by man" in French. However, Marx's elucidation of "exploitation" during this period was primarily reflected in his critique of Max Stirner, suggesting that utilitarianism was a realistic justification for exploitation, though he did not provide a rigorous conceptualization of it. Nevertheless, in the Communist Manifesto, the theoretical status of the concept of "exploitation" was no longer in question, and its use clearly bore the marks of Saint-Simonianism, evidenced particularly by the link between the concepts of "antagonism" and "exploitation." Marx and Engels argued that past history was a history of class antagonisms and a history of one part of society being exploited by another. It is marked by the exploitation of man by man, with the mode of exploitation linked to property relations, while communism is defined as the collective overcoming of class antagonisms and the elimination of such exploitation. Marx's concept of exploitation possesses a descriptive function (identifying general historical features of the past) and an explanatory function (explaining phenomena of inequality and conflict based on the economic base). This descriptive and explanatory nature is characteristic of many of Marx's concepts (social relations of production, class and class struggle, ideology)—concepts that explain the past and present based on features that ought to disappear in a communist society (envisioned as a society without these social relations, classes, or ideology). Marx's theorization of these concepts was often conducted at the descriptive and explanatory levels, yet they retained their utopian coloring. This is true for the concept of exploitation in both the Communist Manifesto and Capital, despite the differences between these two texts in many respects.
There are three major differences in how works like the Communist Manifesto and Capital theoretically explore the theme of exploitation:
First, the theoretical status of the concept. Although the term "exploitation" had already become a concept with theoretical and political status in the Exposition of the Doctrine of Saint-Simon and the Communist Manifesto, it was only in Capital that it developed into a theory of exploitation in the true sense.
Second, the type of conceptualization. For Marx, the concept of exploitation is contained within two theories: one is a historical theory regarding the successive development of modes of production; the other is a theory of the capitalist mode of production. In the first theory, the concept of exploitation is a fundamental concept of historical materialism, referring to the direct or indirect appropriation of a portion of the labor (surplus labor) of the ruled classes by one or more ruling strata, which constructs types of modes of production based on various types of exploitation (slavery, serfdom, wage labor, etc.). It is from this first theoretical perspective that the Communist Manifesto discusses exploitation. In the second theory, the theory of capitalist exploitation is a cornerstone of the theory of capitalism developed in Capital. As discussed in the next section of this article, it is not simply an application of the concepts of historical materialism.
Third, the analysis of the specific characteristics of capitalist exploitation. In Capital, Marx argues that due to the general mechanism of commodity fetishism (Chapter 1, Section 4) and the illusion of the "wage form" (Chapter 17), the characteristic of capitalist exploitation lies specifically in its hidden nature. However, in the Communist Manifesto, Marx argued that, compared to feudal forms of exploitation which remained hidden, the capitalist form is overt: "it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions."
If the problem of exploitation is understood as one requiring a social justification, these two theoretical perspectives are not necessarily contradictory. Such justification comes either from ideological legitimation or from the masking and mystifying functions of fetishism and the wage form. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that even if Marx did not revise his concept of exploitation between 1848 (the publication of the Communist Manifesto) and 1867 (the publication of Capital), he refined it to a significantly high degree.
II. The Concept and Mechanisms of Exploitation in Capital
In Capital, the elucidation of the concept of exploitation is linked to three different objectives: first, to demonstrate that the capitalist mode of production is a new form of exploitation rather than the disappearance of exploitation as it appears on the surface; second, to show that exploitation is the key to capitalist production; and third, to describe the multifaceted effects of exploitation on the working class.
Under the feudal mode of production, surplus labor appeared in specific forms, such as the corvée [3]. However, under the capitalist mode of production, surplus labor cannot be perceived from exploitation because the appearance of the wage is a payment for the total value of labor performed by the worker, thereby creating the illusion that exploitation no longer exists. To distinguish "necessary labor" from "surplus labor" and prove that exploitation has not disappeared, Marx had to argue on the basis of his theory of value. But surplus labor does not exist independently; therefore, it must be proved that the payment of wages to laborers is only a payment for the value of labor power, rather than the total value created by labor power within the workplace. For this purpose, it must also be proved that the value created by labor power is greater than the value paid by the wage. In this sense, Marx sought to provide a scientific demonstration of exploitation by constructing two sets of distinct concepts: the first set is "necessary labor" and the "price of labor power" (paid via wages); the second set is "surplus labor" and "surplus value" (the source of profit). Within this theoretical framework, exploitation and surplus value are essentially equivalent. For example, the title of Chapter 7 of Volume I of Capital is "The Rate of Surplus-Value," and the first section of this chapter is titled "The Degree of Exploitation of Labour-Power"—demonstrating that these two expressions are clearly synonymous.
However, Marx did not stop at emphasizing that exploitation has not disappeared within the capitalist mode of production; more precisely, his goal was to elucidate how exploitation constitutes the key characteristic of the capitalist mode of production—with the production of surplus value as its objective. It is precisely because capitalist production no longer aims at producing use-values, or useful goods and services, but rather at producing exchange value—specifically surplus value—that it constitutes an inexhaustible process. This leads to the exploitation of labor power reaching an unprecedented degree, surpassing even the harshest forms of slavery. This is exactly what Marx sought to demonstrate, particularly in the arguments of Chapter 10 [4] of Volume 1 of Capital. In this chapter, Marx describes the development of forms of over-exploitation in which workers do not even have sufficient time to "reproduce [their] labor power," and thus face the possibility of being "worked to death." The theory of exploitation is developed across different levels. Beyond the economic theoretical perspective, which seeks to determine the standard of surplus labor and the source of profit, and the historical comparative perspective on the forms and degrees of exploitation (embodied in Section 2 of Chapter 10, "The Greed for Surplus Labor. Manufacturer and Boyar"), we believe that in Capital, the theory of exploitation is also understood as a theory of social processes. This theory is applied to different levels of analysis: for instance, the macro-level of social relations of production; the meso-level of power relations specific to institutions such as the market, manufacture, and large-scale industry; and the micro-level of exploitation itself. Capitalist social relations of production are defined by private ownership of the means of production. It is precisely due to the existence of private ownership that the proletariat is deprived of all private property in the means of production, forcing the proletarians to sell their own labor power to capitalists in exchange for a wage that allows for survival. Therefore, capitalist exploitation is established on the basis of a social relation manifested as a structural economic dependence (dépendance économique structurelle). This relationship of dependence tends to reproduce itself, because the wages received by the proletarian are never sufficient to purchase the necessary means of production, leaving them unable to escape their precarious livelihood and forced to continually sell their labor power for wages.
However, in his analysis of exploitation relations, Marx does not merely view them as social relations of production; he also integrates them into a theoretical horizon of power relations (rapports de pouvoir). These power relations allow exploitation to be realized in two distinct social spheres: circulation (or the market) and production (manufacture and large-scale industry). In the process of circulation, the mechanism of exploitation is based on dependence on money; therein, the proletarian is deprived not only of the means of production but also of the right to directly obtain the means of payment for purchasing means of subsistence or production. Consequently, the exploitation relation manifests as a power relation, appearing at the level of circulation as an asymmetric interaction between the "owner of money" and the "owner of labor power." In this process, the latter knows he is forced into a monetary exchange activity conducted at his own expense. In a famous passage in Chapter 6 [5] of Volume 1 of Capital, Marx describes a similar scene: a money-owner "strides in front," while the labor-power owner "follows behind... like one who is bringing his own hide to market and has nothing to expect but—a tanning." Other power mechanisms operate within the sphere of production. In the chapters specifically discussing the working day, manufacture, large-scale industry, and wages, Marx points out that the control over the output of labor power depends on disciplinary mechanisms as well as various technical and organizational factors. First, Marx reveals the implementation of an internal hierarchy based on "factory discipline," the function of which is supervision and punishment. Second, he argues that the rise of machinery established new power relations, forcing workers to submit to the machine while being deskilled, thereby weakening their capacity for negotiation and resistance. Finally, he shows that remuneration systems such as piece-wages establish forms of self-control within a framework that presents itself as self-exploitation.
What is of interest is that this analysis of power relations in manufacture and large-scale industry always unfolds on two fronts simultaneously. On one hand is the perspective describing the transformation of industrial regimes (the transition from manufacture to large-scale industry); on the other is the perspective based on the experience of exploitation. Marx points out that for the worker, the experience of exploitation is an experience of domination. They seek to resist this domination in various ways, and these resistances—whether covert or overt—lead to continuous innovation in the organizational modes of the technical and political division of labor within the workplace. Within this concept, exploitation is concretely manifested as everything from pathogenic working conditions to death caused by excessive workloads, including industrial accidents and various forms of physical and psychological damage related to housing and dietary conditions caused by low wages.
In summary, we can say that the theory of exploitation set forth in Capital combines an economic theory concerning the source of profit (the connection between surplus labor, surplus value, and profit), a sociological theory of the reproduction of structural inequality rooted in class differences (at the level of the appropriation of the means of production), and a socio-economic theory integrating factors of economic dependence and labor domination directed at the subaltern classes. Therefore, Marx’s theory of exploitation is extremely rich, and each of its elements can be independently advanced and developed: as a theory of structural social relations; in the form of the question "who works for whom?"; as a concept of the impersonal domination of the logic of value; as a theory of power relations within the market or the enterprise; and as a theory of the factory as a site of concrete confrontation between labor and capital.
III. Defense Against Challenges
Although Marx’s theory of exploitation is called the classical theory of exploitation, it also faces various criticisms that cannot be ignored. The most typical critical view emerges from an economic perspective, arguing that Marx's demonstration based on the labor theory of value is insufficient. It should first be pointed out that if the issue concerns exploitation in general (l’exploitation en général), then this objection is a misunderstanding of the following point: among all forms of exploitation existing in class societies, Marx only analyzed the problem of capitalist exploitation according to the theory of value. However, if the discussion is about capitalist exploitation, this objection deserves serious consideration. We have already noted that the role of the theory of value lies in proving the existence of exploitation; it provides a theoretical standard to distinguish "necessary labor" from "surplus labor," the latter of which tends to be invisible within the capitalist mode of production. From this view, if the theory of value is overturned, the proof of exploitation is also overturned. Consequently, some economists often rely on this view to either reject the use of the concept of exploitation or advocate for reformulating exploitation independently of any theory of value, adopting another criterion for identifying exploitation: the criterion of justice. Marx refused to equate exploitation with injustice because it is carried out under conditions of free exchange (between the owner of the means of production and the owner of labor power) and equal exchange (paying for labor power at its value, which is also seen as the necessary labor for the reproduction of labor power), thus meeting the requirements of justice. Only forms of over-exploitation—either paying workers wages below their value or endangering the reproduction of labor power—are unjust. Since the issue is a critique of capitalist exploitation in general, and not just over-exploitation, the critique of capitalism should be based on the demand for liberation rather than the standard of justice. That is to say, exploitation should not be understood as injustice, but rather as a form of domination. However, if the theory of value is abandoned, one can no longer assume that wages pay for the value of labor power or that exploitation conforms to the requirements of justice. This leads to exploitation being redefined as a way of obtaining benefits from the actions of others at their expense, thereby modifying Marx's concept of exploitation in two ways: on one hand, interpreting exploitation from the perspective of injustice rather than defining it from the perspective of economic dependence and domination; on the other, associating exploitation with various actions that may unjustly acquire benefits, rather than embodying it solely at the level of labor.
Is the aforementioned concept of exploitation fraught with fewer problems than Marx’s? This is highly doubtful. First, Marx's theory is better able to explain how rank-and-file workers suffer from exploitation at work. It also explains the worker's experience of forced economic dependence (monetary pressure forcing the worker to sell their labor power every day), the experience of being dominated in the workplace, and the experience of being deprived of the products of labor (or the appropriation of surplus labor). However, understanding exploitation based on the problem of the unjust appropriation of another's surplus labor only focuses on the last of these three issues, ignoring the relationship between exploitation, economic dependence, and domination. Although, according to Marx’s concept of exploitation, it is difficult to analyze the experience of exploitation as an experience of injustice, Marx’s analysis of exploitation is more comprehensive than the dilemma faced by the perspective that views exploitation merely as a problem of injustice, because it restores the multiple dimensions of the experience of exploitation in the realm of labor.
Secondly, from an economic perspective, the theory of value also has its advantages: it makes people realize that in the process of creating value, the control over the quantity and quality of the labor expended is a decisive issue. Marx's theory of value emphasizes that while raw materials and machinery constanty transfer their own value to the produced commodities (as "constant capital"), if value is transformed through labor, then labor can produce more or less value within a certain time (as "variable capital") and impede the process of value transfer of raw materials and machinery. This is why labor must be subjected to specific power mechanisms to facilitate the transfer of the value of constant capital and, as variable capital, produce as much value as possible. Even if we were to abandon the theory of value, the distinction between constant and variable capital remains meaningful, and the existence of the concept of exploitation confirms an important economic fact: the contribution of raw materials and machinery to profit differs from that of labor; labor power must be commanded, disciplined, and supervised to ensure the expected level of profit. Therefore, there is a powerful argument against a general concept that understands exploitation merely as a means of utilizing the actions of others within the framework of justice: not only is the act of utilizing another's labor to obtain benefit specific, but this specificity can only be analyzed by reference to forms of domination over labor. Thus, from a strictly economic perspective, it seems reasonable to continue thinking about exploitation according to Marx's emphasis on the specificity of labor exploitation and the perspective of forms of domination.
Finally, we can also defend Marx's concept of capitalist exploitation by reversing the burden of proof: abandoning the theory of value inevitably leads to the loss of the possibility of a standard for distinguishing necessary labor from surplus labor, thereby abandoning the evidentiary basis for the existence of exploitation. But can one truly propose a convincing argument to conclude that exploitation no longer exists in capitalism? Do we really believe that the phenomenon of the appropriation of surplus labor, which has always existed in class societies, would suddenly disappear with the advent of capitalism? Since capitalism is characterized by persistent forms of structural class inequality—driving workers' labor in more creative ways (such as the continuous updating of statistical tracking of the unemployed) and monitoring labor activities (especially through electronic devices and evaluation mechanisms)—capitalist exploitation must exist, and the phenomenon of the appropriation of surplus labor in bourgeois society will not disappear.
Another argument against Marx's concept of capitalist exploitation holds that this concept is built upon a notion of proletarian domination that overemphasizes economic determinism. According to this view, Marx placed too much weight on forms of macro-power (class power and state power) while underestimating the micro-powers that weave relations of domination throughout social life. For this line of opposition, which utilizes Foucault's assertions, the simplest response is to recall Foucault's own research methodology—he took Marx's analysis of capitalist exploitation as a methodological model for his own analysis of power. Foucault emphasized that Marx explored the exploitation suffered by workers from the dual perspectives of structural social relations and concrete mechanisms of power; this analysis of power mechanisms was conducted by studying the techniques of power alongside the resistance they provoke and shape. It should be added that the specificity of Marx's concept of exploitation is not the reduction of relations of domination to class power and state power, but rather the explanation of how a plurality of factors of domination derive their unity and efficacy from their interconnection with relations of economic dependence. In short, much like the critique of the theory of value, the critique of the macro-power perspective fails to provide a more definitive argument for refuting Marx's concept of exploitation.
IV. Neoliberal Exploitation as a Return to the Production of Absolute Surplus Value
The root of the final objection is based on the idea that the theoretical framework established in Capital can no longer explain the forms of labor exploitation dominant in the current neoliberal stage. To test the validity of such an objection, it is first necessary to identify which form of exploitation it refers to, and subsequently verify whether an analysis of such exploitation from Marx’s perspective is indeed impossible. Completing this task would inevitably exceed the length of a single article and is not a problem this text can resolve. Therefore, we need only emphasize that, at least in certain respects, Capital does indeed provide highly illuminating tools for analyzing the contemporary world.
It must first be recalled that Marx once declared the capitalism he studied was not a fixed and immutable structure, but an "organism capable of change and always in a process of change." Marx maintained an open attitude toward the new changes in capitalism in the century and a half since the publication of Volume 1 of Capital; therefore, if the theories in this work cannot explain such changes, it is entirely reasonable to innovate upon them. Furthermore, Marx analyzed not one but two types of capitalist exploitation, distinguishing them through the concepts of "absolute surplus value" (Chapter 3) and "relative surplus value" (Chapter 4). In this regard, Marx explained a shift in capitalism, describing its causes and developmental process: the transition from the production of absolute surplus value to the production of relative surplus value. However, if Marx’s theory of capitalist exploitation still possesses contemporary relevance, it is primarily because the most striking feature of the current stage of capitalism (which may be termed the neoliberal stage) manifests as a return to the production of absolute surplus value. It is not the emergence of a "pure capitalism" (implying capitalism possesses a pure essence that initially appeared historically in an impure way), nor is it the attainment of a fully "mature capitalism" (implying the current stage is a deepening of the logic of relative surplus value), nor a return to the pre-history of capitalism (predatory accumulation).
The role of the concept of absolute surplus value production is to identify the central mechanism for producing surplus labor and surplus value in the first stage of capitalism. Capitalism attempts to increase profits by making workers work as much as possible every day (even if "overwork" leads to death) and by putting children to work as early as possible (leading to a general decline in the physical quality of the adult laboring population). Simultaneously, it attempts to lower wages by using adulterated goods (such as bread made from flour mixed with niter powder) or low-quality goods (such as unsanitary housing conditions) as the commodities necessary for the reproduction of labor power. This reduction in wages can be explained either as wages falling below the value of labor power itself, or as a lowering of the social standard of consumption. According to Marx, the social standard of consumption is also part of the definition of the value of labor power. These two explanations are not mutually exclusive, as a continuous decline in wages below the value of labor power leads to a decline in consumption standards, which in turn leads to a decline in the value of labor power. It should be noted that the two important components of absolute surplus value production—the increase in working time and the reduction of social consumption standards—can both be described independently of the theory of value. They can be narrated in the language of exploitation as two tendencies of "over-exploitation" [6]: on one hand, lowering wages as much as possible, and on the other, increasing working hours as much as possible.
The concept of relative surplus value production refers to a form of exploitation that replaces absolute surplus value production after the pursuit of extra profit is limited by the physiological limits of the worker within the working day, and after early workers' struggles successfully achieved legislative protections regarding the working day and the minimum age for child employment. In this situation, technological progress prevents the reduction of the amount of surplus labor appropriated in the form of surplus value. From the perspective of value theory, technological progress allows the commodities necessary for the reproduction of labor power to be produced in a shorter time (thereby reducing the value of labor power), intentionally increasing the proportion of surplus value production within the working day. This inference can be interpreted independently of value theory: high profit rates are brought about by increases in productivity that are appropriated by capital owners and not shared with workers. This inference can also be expressed in non-economic terms. With the production of relative surplus value, capitalism manages to contain its inherent tendency toward over-exploitation; capitalists either limit exploitation to a normal range or follow the requirements of justice implicit in the labor contract through measures such as labor laws. With the first major transformation of the capitalist mode of production—the shift from manufacture to large-scale industry—a variety of trends with long-term impacts were triggered, producing a massive effect during the Fordist period: increasing the share of investment directed toward research and development; shortening the weekly working time; increasing paid leave; raising the legal working age (for children and youth); lowering the legal retirement age; and strengthening labor laws. During the Fordist period, technological progress shared the fruits of increased productivity in the form of direct or indirect wage increases (public assistance healthcare systems, unemployment, and retirement benefits), promoting a significant rise in social consumption standards.
Surprisingly, the neoliberal period is characterized by a reversal of all the aforementioned trends, at least in the countries at the center of the world economy. In recent decades, a prominent feature has been the increase in the share of profit redistribution at the expense of investment. A strong growth in profits, achieved at the cost of wages, has been accompanied by a slowdown in investment growth, even though productivity increases depend precisely on investment. In the pursuit of short-term profit, the increase in profit levels no longer primarily relies on productivity gains brought by technological innovation. Instead, it relies on one hand on the extension of labor time (weekly hours and years of work) and the intensification of labor, and on the other hand on the reduction of wage costs, eventually taking various forms of challenging or abusing the law (tax law or labor law).
The long-term trend of reducing weekly working hours is reversing, which is one of the most striking features of the current stage; meanwhile, the retirement age has also begun to be postponed. Furthermore, various forms of outsourcing allow capitalist enterprises at the center of the world economy to employ children and youth in other countries at ages prohibited in their own countries. Regarding labor time, at the level of the working day (due to the blurring of boundaries and the colonization of private life by work), and at the level of weekly working hours and years of work, we find the purest form of the logic of absolute surplus value production: making people work as much as possible to produce more surplus value. the return of a typical phenomenon illustrates this: "overwork" leading to death, such as the karoshi [7] phenomenon now appearing among employees in South Korea and Japan who are forced to work 80 hours a week. However, the explanation of the logic of absolute surplus value production also requires modification, of which the minimal part is understanding the increase in the amount of labor as an increase in intensity rather than an extensive quantity. One of the characteristics of neoliberal corporate power techniques is the aim to reduce "idle time" as much as possible and increase labor intensity as much as possible. Individual performance appraisals, competition between employees, and electronic monitoring of employee status are all widely used technical means to increase labor intensity. According to the logic of absolute surplus value production, the increase in labor intensity has not been restricted in the neoliberal stage of capitalism. Notably, these new technical means of increasing labor intensity also explain the wave of workplace suicides, which is the second typical feature of neoliberalism: the return of "working oneself to death."
The logic of absolute surplus value production is also manifested in the pursuit of profit growth through the reduction of overall wage costs (even when the wages of high-income personnel are rising significantly). When this reduction is achieved through direct or indirect (reduction of social benefits) lowering of wage levels, or more extremely, through the development of unpaid work (internships or so-called "job placements," such as "one-euro jobs" [8]), it embodies the purest logic of absolute surplus value production: lower wages accompanied by a decline in consumption standards. However, the reduction of wage costs also manifests through other mechanisms in which the production of absolute surplus value appears in a modified form, although some of these mechanisms similarly result in a decline in consumption standards. In fact, neoliberal capitalism also lowers wage costs through subcontracting or transforming employees into freelancers to hire cheaper labor, and by offshoring enterprises to countries where wage levels are lower at both direct and indirect levels.
Finally, it should be noted that the mechanisms driving the increase in labor time and intensity are interwoven in various ways with the mechanisms for reducing wage costs. Layoffs can achieve an intensification of labor while simultaneously cutting wage costs. The weakening of labor laws in centrally located economic nations removes barriers to the technical means of increasing labor intensity, while also eliminating indirect wage costs (i.e., the possibility of receiving compensation in cases of unfair dismissal). Offshoring enterprises to countries that do not strictly enforce labor laws follows the same logic. It must be noted that the final reversal of the long-term trends formed during the Fordist period encompasses the two basic tendencies of absolute surplus value production—a reversal that would have been difficult to predict 50 years ago: the development of informal sector employment in both central and peripheral countries, even though this form of employment once seemed to be in an inevitable decline.
In order to identify the changes that constitute the accumulation logic and forms of exploitation specific to neoliberalism, the distinction between absolute surplus value and relative surplus value remains significant, even if one no longer relies on value theory to define them. Of course, the distinction between these two forms of exploitation cannot be mechanically generalized to periods other than the one analyzed by Marx. The ubiquity of information and communication technologies has proven that the pursuit of increasing productivity through technological progress has not been abandoned. From this, it can be discovered that contemporary capitalism possesses another characteristic linked by Marx to the concept of relative surplus value in Capital: the "real subsumption" [9] of labor—the labor process is continuously transformed to increase labor intensity and reduce worker insubordination. The return of absolute surplus value production is a return of absolute surplus value with a degree of "relative subsumption," which from another angle illustrates that Marx's concept of capitalist exploitation still possesses contemporary relevance for analyzing the power relations specific to neoliberal enterprises. In the century and a half since the publication of Capital, the forms of labor organization have undergone enormous changes, but even today, it remains meaningful to distinguish between the social division of labor within society and the technical and political division of labor within the workplace. Marx thus emphasized that the introduction of machinery, while lowering the technical content of work, also weakened the workers' capacity for negotiation and resistance. People working according to "scripts" in call centers fit this situation. From a broader perspective, neoliberal labor organization is built upon both competition among workers and internal flexibility, as well as the informatized monitoring of individual performance, which well illustrates that changes in organization and technology are intended not only to improve productivity but also to weaken workers' capacity for resistance as much as possible.
Therefore, we maintain that Marx’s theory of capitalist exploitation remains valid in contemporary society. This is not only because distinguishing between different forms of exploitation helps us understand the specific characteristics of labor exploitation under the conditions of neoliberal capitalism, but also because it reveals the universal logic of capitalist exploitation that remains operative throughout: the integration of capital accumulation with the coercive mechanisms for the continuous renewal of surplus labor.
(Author: Emmanuel Renault, Department of Philosophy, Paris Nanterre University; Translator: Wang Yue, Department of Philosophy, Peking University)
Web Editor: Tongxin Source: Foreign Theoretical Trends [10], Issue 6, 2022. Originally published in Actuel Marx, Vol. 63, No. 1, 2018; the translation has been abridged.