Talk:Exploitation of labour

Cleanup
hello! I did a big cleanup (or at least what I hope was a cleanup):


 * I think there was no crisp distinction between the pro/anti-market sections, and the pro/anti-capitalist sections. A lot of verbiage was redundant, appearing in both the pro sections, or both the anti sections.


 * The "exploitation in developing nations" was sort of an odd-man out. I moved it to a seperate article.


 * The interleaved "he said / she said" interleaving of assertion and rebuttal is not good wikipedia form, and we were doing it here. I've created one big area for the each family of theories (noted above), and in each of these two sections, put a single "Criticism of opposing theories".  My hope is that anything that actively explains the core of one theory will go in the theorie's main section (or new subsections, if that's useful) and anything that attacks the opposing theory, or rebutts criticisms of the opposing theory, can go in the "criticisms" section.


 * I'm not sure I did the right thing with the micro/macro or organizational/structural bits. I lumped them under "Marxist".  Is that right?  Certainly they should not be at a top level (as they don't exist under the pro-market theories).  So: perhaps under Marxism, perhaps elsewhere in anti-market, perhaps in a new article?


 * On this talk page, I removed most of what was here: I think that most of the issues we were debating came to some resolution, and in those cases, I've tried to preserve the resolutions: e.g. I haven't touched anything in the anti-market areas.


 * A suggestion: I'd like to have a certain level of detante: let's allow each of the two major sections to speak for themselves.  A pro-market person should not edit the Marxist section to change "labor theory of value" to "the SO-CALLED labor theory of value", nor should an anti-market person edit the pro-market section from "under condition X exploitation can not exist" to "Z's assert that under condition X exploitation can not exist, despite fact R".

User:Tjic

Overall I think this page is pretty well-written, with this one exception from "Criticisms of opposing theories": "in their view, labor unions are either criminal or sponsored by the state" Who asserts this? I've never heard anyone make such a blanket statement. If the meaning of this sentence is supposed to be "labor unions which exert coercive exploitative power are either criminal or sponsored...", then it makes sense, but as it reads, it looks like pro-market theorists are making a paranoiac allegation. --JdwNYC 20:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Well written, but conceptually faulty
It is stated in the article: "[exploitation] is a kind of market failure, a deviation from an ideal vision of capitalism." This is, of course, a contradiction in terms. Exploitation is indeed a deviation from Capitalism, but it cannot be a market failure, of course. Market failure is claimed by anti-free-market advocates to be the natural result of free-rolling capitalism.

This is typical of the problematic conceptualisation of "exploitation" in this article: both neoclassical and neoliberal thories are used here as "carriers" of variations of the Marxists ideas, whereas in fact both claim that under free market conditions exploitation is not possible, and only exists as a result of governmental action to limit activities in the market. 192.115.133.141 12:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the specific references to certain brand names. While I'm not disputing the accuracy or inaccuracy of the allegations, I think it wise to remove the specific references as there are no citations. - Riaan

And Ciara Says "HI" to all of her homies!!!!:)

wow
Ok I've been drinking cocktails but I thought this "In brief, the profit gained by the capitalist is the difference between the value of the product made by the worker and the actual wage that the worker receives; in other words, capitalism functions on the basis of paying workers less than the full value product of their labor." was so insightful. Thanks everyone for this informative article. special, random,Merkinsmum 01:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Soviet Union
I know that many think today that the Soviet system was well-intended but am adding Economy of the Soviet Union. Obviously a business exists primarily to benefit its shareholders, not its workers. Businesses are up-front about that. Is it more or less dishonest to run a system that is theoretically in favour of the workers but in reality exploits them?86.42.213.48 (talk) 11:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

missing definition Exploitation has a distinct meaning in the intelligence and military communities that is not captured here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.104.145.50 (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

delete
This is very bad and needs to be removed, if only because of no references.

In Marxian economics, exploitation refers to the subjection of producers (the proletariat) to work for passive owners (bourgeoisie) for less compensation than is equivalent to the actual amount of work done. The proletarian is forced to sell his or her labour power, rather than a set quantity of labour, in order to receive a wage in order to survive, while the capitalist exploits the work performed by the proletarian by accumulating the surplus value of their labour. Therefore, the capitalist makes his/her living by passively owning a means of production and generating a profit, when instead the labor should be entitled to all it produces.

Here is how exploitation is defined in Bottomore's Marxist Dictionary 2nd ed, 1991 p.176-177

Capitalism differs from NON-CAPITALIST MODES OF PRODUCTION in that exploitation formally takes place without the direct intervention of force or non-economic processes. The surplus in the capitalist mode arises from the specific character of its production process and epecially, the manner in which it is linked to the process of EXCHANGE. Capitalist production generates a surplus because capitalists buy workers' labour-power at a wage equal to its value but, being in control of production, extract labour greater than the equivalent of that wage. Marx differed from the classical political economists, who saw exploitation as arising from the unequal exchange of labour for the wage. For Marx, the distinction between labour and labour power allowed the latter to be sold at its value while the former created the surplus. Thus exploitation occurs in the capitalist mode of production behind the backs of the participants, hidden by the facade of free and equal exchange (see COMMODITY FETISHISM). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 21:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

shared scale of value?
The section on liberal exploitation is confusing in general. Is the idea that the exchangers have a shared scale of value and the things they exchange should be of equal value on this scale? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.171.156.208 (talk) 19:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The "In developing nations" section is almost completely devoid of sources
I don't really think this section is up to par with Wikipedia's standards. Almost no sources and some politically charged statements that don't seem objective. Edited some of the most offensive ones but I think the section as a whole needs sources or it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aa24577 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Done, added points where I believe citation is needed. Please reply to let me know what you think, and if anything can be improved upon. Regards. Obama gaming (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Marx a moralizer fighting the injustice of exploitation?
Hello. I must say that I do not understand why someone claimed that Marx viewed exploitation as morally unjust. From reading the article, one could get the impression that Marx was one huge moralizer. He did not intend to moralize it.

(1) In the preface of "Das Kapital" (volume 1, the first edition) he explicetly said he wanted to avoid certain misunderstandings. He did not depict capitalists and land owners in "a rosy light" but he did not intend to blame someone for something forced upon him by social circumstances.

"To prevent possible misunderstanding, a word. I paint the capitalist and the landlord in no sense couleur de rose [i.e., seen through rose-tinted glasses]. But here individuals are dealt with only in so far as they are the personifications of economic categories, embodiments of particular class-relations and class-interests. My standpoint, from which the evolution of the economic formation of society is viewed as a process of natural history, can less than any other make the individual responsible for relations whose creature he socially remains, however much he may subjectively raise himself above them." https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p1.htm

Let me give you another example. Later in that book, when he writes about the English Factory Acts, he said that capitalists have to exploit workers in order to survive as capitalists in a world of competition. It was not their "good" or "ill" will.

"Hence Capital is reckless of the health or length of life of the labourer, unless under compulsion from society. To the out-cry as to the physical and mental degradation, the premature death, the torture of over-work, it answers: Ought these to trouble us since they increase our profits? But looking at things as a whole, all this does not, indeed, depend on the good or ill will of the individual capitalist. Free competition brings out the inherent laws of capitalist production, in the shape of external coercive laws having power over every individual capitalist." https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch10.htm#S5

(2) In "Das Kapital" Marx did not try an idealistic critique. He did not take, for instance, the idea of justice comparing it to reality claiming that the latter was unjust. According to Marx, in capitalism it is not unjust that the labourer does not get the whole value produced by him. According to the laws of exchange, a worker usually gets paid the value of his labour force. That the capitalist uses this labour force in order to get a certain amount of surplus-value is of no concern to the labourer. He has got what he deserved. In a capitalist world, this is totally fine and just.

"The use-value of labour-power, or in other words, labour, belongs just as little to its seller, as the use-value of oil after it has been sold belongs to the dealer who has sold it. The owner of the money has paid the value of a day’s labour-power; his, therefore, is the use of it for a day; a day’s labour belongs to him. The circumstance, that on the one hand the daily sustenance of labour-power costs only half a day’s labour, while on the other hand the very same labour-power can work during a whole day, that consequently the value which its use during one day creates, is double what he pays for that use, this circumstance is, without doubt, a piece of good luck for the buyer, but by no means an injury to the seller. [...] Every condition of the problem is satisfied, while the laws that regulate the exchange of commodities, have been in no way violated. Equivalent has been exchanged for equivalent. For the capitalist as buyer paid for each commodity, for the cotton, the spindle and the labour-power, its full value. He then did what is done by every purchaser of commodities; he consumed their use-value." https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch07.htm#S2

(3) In "Kritik des Gothaer Programms" mentioned in this Wikipedia article, Marx was criticizing the idea that the labourer should get directly the whole of his product and he especially criticized Ferdindan Lassalle for this. He refused the idea even in the case of a possible communist society, for, even then, the workers would have to put aside a part of their produce for, let us say, "social funds" for those who cannot work and for an admininstration and for schooling and so on. Again he was very critical of moral ideas. Certain deductions from the produce HAVE to be made, which was not a question of justice, like saving supplies for bad times and for expanding the means of production.

"What is "a fair distribution"?

Do not the bourgeois assert that the present-day distribution is "fair"? And is it not, in fact, the only "fair" distribution on the basis of the present-day mode of production? Are economic relations regulated by legal conceptions, or do not, on the contrary, legal relations arise out of economic ones? Have not also the socialist sectarians the most varied notions about "fair" distribution?"

and later on he wrote

"Let us take, first of all, the words "proceeds of labor" in the sense of the product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product. From this must now be deducted: First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc. These deductions from the "undiminished" proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity. There remains the other part of the total product, intended to serve as means of consumption. Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

I hope that someone could pay attention to that and change the article accordingly. I would like to do it myself but I do not possess a great deal of English literature on Marx. Jörg Sophosat (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , just addressed your point -- BunnyyHop ( talk ) 21:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Text that reads out of an ML manifesto or an argumentative ML essay not an encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Exploitation_of_labour&diff=prev&oldid=996038332 "This labour performed by a population over a certain time period is equal to the labour embodied to the goods that make up the net national product (NNP). The NNP is then parceled out to the members of the population in some way and this is what creates the two groups, or agents, involved in the exchange of goods: exploiters and exploited"

"The exploiters are the agents able to command goods, with revenue from their wages, that are embodied with more labour than the exploiters themselves have put forth- based on the exploitative social relations of capitalist production. These agents often have class status and ownership of productive assets that aid the optimization of exploitation. The exploiters would typically be the bourgeoisie."

I am going to stop here simply go to the difference the entirety of this section reads like an pro-ML argumentative essay or propaganda piece. All the citations given is simply Karls Marx primary sources, that's it there is no other citations. Here is a fraction of a fraction of more non-encylopedic pro-ML pushing nonsense:

"Capitalists cannot expand labor time arbitrarily because they encounter physical and legal limits. But if the productive power of labor increases in the areas relevant for the production of necessary food, then there is less labor in this food. Then their value decreases and so does the value of labor. Thus, the necessary labor time can be shortened and the surplus labor time can be lengthened."

"This process tends to lead to crises, since production is expanded and consumption is limited at the same time. When productive power increases, production tends to expand. This is because the use of expensive machinery is often only worthwhile if more is produced than before. Furthermore, the capitalist who is the first to use the innovative mode of production will try to get as much extra surplus value as possible. After all, he wants to use up his machines as quickly as possible before they have to be replaced by new machines. An easy way to sell the larger quantity of goods is to lower the price. This puts pressure on the competition. Those who cannot keep up with it risk their own bankruptcy. If capitalists compete with each other, they must strive for the greatest possible utilization of their capital in order to have money for innovations."

"The individual capitalist does not simply appropriate surplus value abruptly. The surplus-value mass of society as a whole is redistributed according to the average rate of profit. In the third volume of Capital, Marx concretizes his categories. He distinguishes the concept of surplus value from the concept of profit. The surplus-value concept is a scientific concept by which Marx reveals exploitation and the relation of m and v."

"The appropriation of surplus value is not limited to the industrial capitalist who has goods produced or services performed. If he sells below value to a merchant capitalist and the latter resells to realize the value, then the merchant can appropriate some of the surplus value." "The price of labor and the standard of living of the worker may rise. This does not endanger the system. The capitalist mode of production tends to regulate the price of labor power according to the requirements of capital valorization."

"In order to overcome exploitation, it would be necessary to eliminate wage labor altogether. The dynamics of the capitalist mode of production produce the conditions for a new society" This is literally plain and simple an argumentative essay, he doesn't even try to hide it, he doesn't even attribute it anybody he at this point is making an argumentative essay. "In order to abolish these relations, "[a]n association must take the place of the old bourgeois society with its classes and class antagonisms," "wherein the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all,"

"Under capitalism, not only are workers exploited, but natural resources are depleted."

"It is true that labor and nature become means of capital exploitation, but the capitalist mode of production systematically corrodes the foundations of wealth" (This is cited not using any actual papers but instead literally Karl Marxs das Kapital)

"The exploitation of man and nature are also linked at the level of consciousness. The mystification of wages forms a basis for the Trinitarian formula. One aspect of this formula is that man perceives the soil in a mystified way. It appears as if the soil is an independent source of value."

If you go through the entire diff you will see more POV pushing sections that aren't belong in an argumentative essay. It also is completely based around Karl Marx's Das Kapital the definition of a a unreliable primary source to base this article around. Vallee01 (talk) 05:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * This section is about the Marxist POV on exploitation. I don't understand where you have problems. If you have problems with the general reliance on primary sources, add secondary ones. Do not revert everything for no reason, because that's filibustering. Using primary sources isn't unreliable, and it's preferable to use secondary ones, but it's definitely not forbidden. You reverted for no real reason other than «yeah this is pov pushing and there's not as much secondary sources as I'd like», even though there's plenty secondary sources interwined. The section is under inspection by the COPYRIGHT Board, we'll see what conclusion they come to. Stating an opinion with no effort to find consensus is evil. -- BunnyyHop ( talk ) 17:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Please learn the actual things you accuse people of, your use of the term "filibuster" is completely false. This isn't a place to try to write an argumentative essay, nor does it allow to write an ML POV ever. This like isn't acceptable these entire edits are complete pro-POV pushing nonsense, you at one point even drop the fassad and literally use word for word straight out of an ML manifesto, "In order to overcome exploitation, it would be necessary to eliminate wage labor altogether. The dynamics of the capitalist mode of production produce the conditions for a new society." &#91;&#91;user:Vallee&#124;Des Vallee&#93;&#93; (talk) 18:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Open a dispute in the neutral point of view noticeboard. In an article about the Marxist POV, Marxist terms should be used. To remove this would be to suck any sense out of it, leaving a bunch of words mixed together. I think this would be worthless for us to discuss due to it being guideline oriented - «should the Marxist POV be shown?» -- BunnyyHop ( talk ) 19:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Planning on doing that, I already filled an RfC request. The edits you added are POV pushing It reads out of an argumentative essay. BunnyyHop you can't ever use term like "Socialism is required to overcoming capitalism" ever, you can state "Marxists view socialism as required as overcoming capitalism" and even then provide a broad view of beliefs, including criticisms and use neutral wording, something you don't do at all. As well as this, all this edits source was Karl Marx's primary sources instead of verified secondary sources, you at times quote Das Kapital word, for word. user:Vallee&#124;Des Vallee (talk) 19:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Great thing we are going to solve this dispute in a civilized manner.
 * I don't see any «Socialism is required to overcoming capitalism» type wording here. But those are things you can easily alter if found, hence why reverting everything is editing in a way with no effort to find consensus.
 * «all this edits source was Karl Marx's primary sources» not true. There's almost as much references to Michael Heinrich as there are to Marx. Not everything is able to be reported through secondary sources, if your concern is that there's not as much secondary sources as you'd like, then find them, don't remove the text.
 * -- BunnyyHop ( talk ) 19:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Almost all of your citations which you added were Karl Marx or Fredric Engels himself: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Exploitation_of_labour&diff=996288149&oldid=996215343#References. Des Vallee (talk) 19:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * You're right, I was equivocated. In reality there are 22 references to Marx and 24 to Michael Heinrich. -- BunnyyHop ( talk ) 19:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Your entire sections are almost completely devolved around primary sources and you use them constantly at times literally having text that is from Marxist manifestos a violation of NPOV, at times you get into the space of copyright violations, when you use these citations you often used biased wording similar to the original and present the article as argumentative essay. It seems like your edit was you trying to convince people in the Exploitation of labour and Marxism rather then trying to educate or create an encyclopedia for it. Des Vallee (talk) 19:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * «Marxist manifestos» ?
 * «entire sections are almost completely devolved around primary sources» there's as much reliance on primary sources as there is on secondary, according to the amount of references used.
 * Now would be a good time to take a look at WP:AVOIDYOU, since it seems like we're starting to get into that territory. If the claim of «biased wording» in the article is legitimate, simply reword it. -- BunnyyHop ( talk ) 20:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * This is about your edit, the edit reads like an argumentative essay, their is use of complete POV pushing text and it is formatted in way which to me reads as an essay trying to convince the reader that Marxism is correct. You use a grand total of two citations the majority of the article is based around Karl Marx and Frederich Engels, and you constantly quote them, although these primary sources obviously should be used they are over relied far to heavily.


 * The reason we don't use primary sources for building an article is because the overuse of primary sources allows for bias to completely in the article as an example it might be tempting to use "Das Kapital" as the main citation for the article Das Kapital but in doing so you are relying directly upon an inherently using a biased text. When overusing Primary sources it allows those the primary authors to state their worldview, as an example an account of an event by a primary source will inherently put undue weight towards the person of the account, when using secondary sources we can scrutinize the original points of the account, and question it in way which primary sources can't or at least won't. Secondary sources instead of presenting a worldview can provide different points and analysis's towards the original work, and is considered less biased therefor we use it more often.


 * That's all the citations you used in the article it's not only complete POV wording, it's contents are inherently biased. How do you "fix" sections that state as a fact that Marxism is a form of scientific truth? You added a grand total of 50,000 bytes to this article, if you would like to propose a more neutral and less biased version of your edit you can do that, but nobody is obliged to go through hundreds of paragraphs of text to try to fix an NPOV issue. Des Vallee (talk) 20:58, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Biography of Heinrich (translated from dewiki):
 * "Heinrich was a research assistant at the Department of Political Science at the Free University of Berlin from 1987 to 1993, where he received his doctorate (Dr. rer. pol.). In 1998, he was a visiting professor at the University of Vienna, and in 2003, a substitute professor at the Berlin University of Applied Sciences (FHTW). Subsequently, Heinrich was a lecturer at the Free University of Berlin. Since the 2005/2006 winter semester, he has been back at the FHTW, which was renamed the Berlin University of Applied Sciences in 2009. Heinrich had worked in the early phase of the edition of Marx's excerpts on the crisis of 1857/58 of the Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe Abteilung 4, Band 14."


 * "Heinrich was an executive member of the editorial board of PROKLA - Zeitschrift für kritische Sozialwissenschaft (Journal for Critical Social Science) with responsibility for press law until October 2014. He was succeeded in this position by Ingo Stützle."


 * "His work focuses on Marxian theory and the history of economic theory formation. Heinrich belongs to the circle of left-wing economists around Professor Emeritus Elmar Altvater."


 * "In April 2018, Heinrich's first volume of a three-part biography of Marx was published, which presents Marx's life in a context of the development of his works. In October 2018, the book was published in Brazil, and the English-language translation appeared in June 2019, followed by the French edition in September 2019. Further volumes have been announced for 2020 and 2022."


 * I don't know whose historian you're referring to, but I do know that the article quotes Heinrich two more times than Marx. The rest, I honestly couldn't understand. «Neutral Point Of View» is not neutral content, nor no POV, but rather neutral editing. The point of the article is to show a «biased text» (whatever this means), it's intended to show the Marxist (and from other authors) POV. WP:NEUTRALEDIT. Universalize that line of thought, and don't just apply it with «Marxism», and you'll see how empty Wikipedia will get. -- BunnyyHop ( talk ) 21:10, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source, the entire text is built around Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels, and constantly references them even you use your other citation. The citation doesn't mean you only base 50% of your text of Karl Marx something which by itself is unacceptable almost your entire text is based around primary sources, you stated you "don't know anything about that," as you translated this article from German. Did you even review the translation? I wouldn't post copy paste walls of text it makes navigating extremely difficult and doesn't add to the discussion, instead just add a link.


 * You constantly quote them using complete POV sections. You build this entire text on primary sources, even when using the other citation you constantly built around the original texts of Karl Marx. You are constantly using Marx's quotes, using POV wording used by Marx, like "exploiters." You use text nearly identical to Karl Marx's manifestos, take word for word Marx's original biased phrasing. Karl Marx is allowed to use biased phrasing, anybody is allowed to write an argumentative essay, as trying to convince people of something is fine. Wikipedia isn't a place for that however. Des Vallee (talk) 21:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but its sources however may or may not be. In this [article] of Federal University of Minas Gerais, he is described as an
 * "The German mathematician and political scientist Michael Heinrich, from the University of Applied Sciences in Berlin, one of the greatest connoisseurs of Karl Marx's work, will lecture this Friday, 26, starting at 11 a.m., in auditorium 1 of the Face, campus Pampulha. Heinrich, who defends the actuality of Das Capital - the launch of the first volume completes 150 years in 2017 - is part of the Mega Project, which aims to research and publish all the manuscripts and works of the German thinker. The conference is part of the program that celebrates the 90th anniversary of UFMG."
 * I don't really understand the point you're trying to make here. «something which by itself is unacceptable» by whom?
 * «using complete POV sections» The whole section is a POV. That's the point of Wikipedia, to show all points of view, exposed in a neutral prespective. This just doesn't make sense. It's forbidden to use the word «exploiters» in an article titled «exploitation of labour», because that's Marx's «biased phrasing»...? --21:58, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think you are going to convince anyone that your edits constitute any form of NPOV, its not subtle POV pushing. You can keep trying to justify the use of "imperialist," "exploiter," "comrade," or other such nonsense into articles. See Primary sources for more details on when not to use primary sources. funny how you constantly link Wikipedia policies or essays without any understanding of them, in fact you sometimes directly go against the policies.


 * "The whole section is a POV. That's the point of Wikipedia, to show all points of view" No BunnyyHop, no it's not where on earth are you getting this information? Fringe theories have absolutely no place on Wikipedia, garbage conspiracy theories have no place, denialism has no place on Wikipedia, pseudoscience has no place on Wikipedia. We aren't here to report on "different POV's" that is complete nonsense. Des Vallee (talk) 23:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the point of the first paragraph, it has nothing to do with what is being debated here.
 * WP:NEUTRALEDIT -- BunnyyHop ( talk ) 23:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Your recent changes to the page essentially is a ML manifesto or a argumentative essay. So you clearly don't understand Wikipedia policies, and you stated it falsely that's about it. Your changes suggest that you approve of putting essentially propaganda into articles. Des Vallee (talk) 00:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * «Propaganda», «ML (?) manifesto» - What? Again, WP:AVOIDYOU -- BunnyyHop ( talk ) 00:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is about your edits on the page, not about you, your edit read clearly like a convince the reader of a world view.
 * You added entire sections in which Marxism is stated to be a form of science that is correct you don't even attribute it to anyone you simply state it as a fact and use a quote by Karl Marx. Your edits read like your trying to convince the reader of being a Marxist. Des Vallee (talk) 01:43, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Where, exactly? -- BunnyyHop ( talk ) 01:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Here is one: "It is true that labor and nature become means of capital exploitation, but the capitalist mode of production systematically corrodes the foundations of wealth" (This is cited not using any actual papers but instead literally Karl Marx's das Kapital). This is a fact? You cite Karl Marx as a primary source and one other mediocre citation and think this enough to state this outlandish statement?: Another one: "For Engels, the explanation of the exploitation of the working class under capitalism was Marx's second great discovery, along with his materialist conception of history, which elevated socialism to a science." Describing Marxism as some time of correct science isn't allowed.

I went through only 10% of your changes this just some of the extreme POV, stated facts, misuse of quotes, POV pushing names.

"This process of exploitation is a part of the redistribution of labour, occurring during the process of separate agents exchanging their current productive labour for social labour set in goods received." Stated as fact, also reads like a manifesto

"The exploiters are the agents able to command goods, with revenue from their wages, that are embodied with more labour than the exploiters themselves have put forth- based on the exploitative social relations of capitalist production." POV pushing, it doesn't matter who called anybody "exploiters" you can't use POV text describing any group as "exploiters," or "imperialists".

"These agents often have class status and ownership of productive assets that aid the optimization of exploitation. The exploiters would typically be the bourgeoisie." You are explaining this to the reader in a way that reads like a manifesto.

"In the context of factory legislation, Marx explicitly stated that the capitalist had to exploit the worker as much as possible in order to maintain himself as a capitalist in competition, and that this was not due to the "bad will" of the capitalist." Not encyclopedic, sounds like a manifesto.

"Marx did not intend an idealistic critique that measured bourgeois relations against the idea of justice."

"In class societies, the members of the exploiting class have the labour power of the exploited and the essential social means of production. In order for a class to form whose members can permanently and securely appropriate the surplus product of another class, a certain social productive power of labour must have been achieved;" You are just telling the reader what to think, you present these as facts or truths.

"In the Middle Ages, the attachment of the masses of the people "to the soil was the basis of feudal pressure." Presented as fact, something which it isn't its a Marxist POV, the citation for this bold claim is: A quote from Fredric Angles

"The capitalist's capital and all the surplus value (m) that is created out of it is therefore variable capital (v). The capital employed and all the wealth accumulated from it (accumulation) is therefore based more and more on the unpaid appropriation of foreign labour power in the wage-labour relationship in the course of capitalist production." This doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.

"In the simple commodity circulation W-G-W, someone sells a commodity in order to buy another commodity with the money received, which he wants to consume. It is not primarily a matter of value growth and the movement is measured by the need or ends with its satisfaction. In the movement G-W-G', on the other hand, money is both the starting point and the end point. Capital utilisation becomes an end in itself." Doesn't belong in encyclopedia, belongs in a textbook of Marxism, also states "Capital utilisation becomes an end in itself" as a fact.

Des Vallee (talk) 01:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for pointing them out. 1- That text was previously in the article IIRC, but I changed it regardless. 2- Done 3- Done 4- Done 5- Done 6- Done 7- Done 8- Added «According to Heinrich's explanation». Check below. 9- I disagree. Check Circular_flow_of_income for instance. Also - done It's great we're finally achieving consensus after many disputes in many other articles. I'll try to look for more stuff not written correctly. -- BunnyyHop ( talk ) 02:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * You stated "done" yet you don't state what you have changed. Anyway I don' really think, you can really fix most of the text which is written. How do you fix that the statements which literally state word for word the requirement of Marxism? You can't. Did you not see these issues in the text? Like this isn't obscure issues with the text this is the first paragraphs, almost all sections are POV pushing. In fact it's hard to find much any sections which don't have POV. Most of the text can't be fixed it is inherently POV pushing. I appreciate that it seems as though you are trying to fix the bias, although you never stated what you are fixing. I can also appreciate you being able to see bias, as previously you defended use of the term "comrade" and was not moving from your position. Des Vallee (talk) 04:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * What I meant by «Done» was that attribution was added, but fair point. «Most of the text can't be fixed it is inherently POV pushing» - what it matters is if it's written with a neutral point of view. See WP:OPINION. -- BunnyyHop ( talk ) 04:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * No being discussed in a NPOV isn't enough to add it. Unless you have the citations, and appropriate handling of the source in sections we can't add it. Also reverting the old version while there is an active discussion trying to get around consensus isn't allowed, please stop doing that you know this you have been told this on multiple articles. A good rule of thumb for knowing if consensus is closed, if there is an active discussion don't try to close it, really, really bad choice. Des Vallee (talk) 04:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * It was reverted for what, exactly? You have not given a valid reason. What policy is it violating, exactly, for its complete removal? Everything is cited afaik. -- BunnyyHop ( talk ) 04:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC
This article by user has text that reads mostly straight out of an ML manifesto or an argumentative essay. It at one "The exploitation of man and nature are also linked at the level of consciousness. The mystification of wages forms a basis for the Trinitarian formula. One aspect of this formula is that man perceives the soil in a mystified way. It appears as if the soil is an independent source of value" followed by: "Exploitation of man and exploitation of nature go hand in hand. Thus Marx states in the first volume of Capital that every advance in capitalist agriculture is 'not only an advance in the art of robbing the worker, but at the same time in the art of robbing the soil, every advance in increasing its fertility for a given period of time is at the same time an advance in ruining the permanent sources of this fertility. [...] Capitalist production develops [...] only the technique and combination of the social process of production, undermining at the same time the springing sources of all wealth: the soil and the worker." He believes that I am filibustering despite all of his edits being extremely POV pushing. It is extremely obvious so I am making this RfC request. &#91;&#91;user:Vallee&#124;Des Vallee&#93;&#93; (talk) 18:59, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Diff in dispute> Here, since the edit was reverted. new diff-- BunnyyHop ( talk ) 20:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a dispute based on the premisse of «should the Marxist POV be shown?» and «should Marxist terms be used to illustrate that point of view?». Also, «abandons the pretext of a Wikipedia article and states stating "Socialism is required for the rise of humanity."» is what you're stating, not the article, so I don't understand the quotes. I said filibustering would be to revert the whole edit for maybe one or two sentences, call it «pov pushing» and not say anything else about it. My edit is based off of a translation of the page on dewiki, which has 38 observers. -- BunnyyHop ( talk ) 19:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * No this is dispute is about if or if not you should be able to write an argumentative essay in a Wikipedia article, or at times straight POV text that states Marxist positions as factual. If we do show a Marxist POV we always use terms like "Marxists claim" instead of presenting the opinions as Marxists as facts, something you do multiple times in the article. We use verifiable secondary sources not just Karl Marx's primary sources. You also consistently use complete POV wording describing groups as "exploiters," "comrades," "imperialists" and other nonsense. We also list criticisms as well, and use neutral wording. Something you haven't done. user:Vallee&#124;Des Vallee (talk) 19:10, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't use «Marxists claim» because it's a word that introduces bias MOS:CLAIM. I don't think Marxist opinions are presented as facts, they're presented as Marxist theory, the whole category is «Marxist POV».
 * «as you only use Karl Marx as a source for the entire article» Not true, Michael Heinrich is used almost as many times as Marx.
 * «We also list criticisms as well» which we do - there's a section on criticism in the same category of «Marxism»
 * -- BunnyyHop ( talk ) 19:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Please learn what Wikipeida policies are before you state them. You need to attribute the group you are stating, else you are stating their opinion as fact. You can't state your own personal opinion nor can you write this article as a personal argumentative paper or a Marxist-Leninist essay. Their is use of POV text, weasel words (with the only citations being Karl Marx,) unverified statements, POV pushing wording. You need to state "claim" for any group else you are presenting that groups view as correct. As an example: "Socialism is required to overcome capitalism" (This isn't allowed and you have been told this multiple times) "Socialists claim that to capitalism requires socialism" (This is fine, be sure not to give undue weight.) Your sections are full of pure POV in the sections you wrote. Des Vallee (talk) 19:31, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * It's attributed to «Marxist exploitation theory». «Socialism is required to overcome capitalism» is not mentioned in the text. -- BunnyyHop ( talk ) 19:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * It is an example to show when and what to attribute. You have some sections which are nearly word for word identical to that statement. Des Vallee (talk) 19:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I have translated it from dewiki. About that I don't know. -- BunnyyHop ( talk ) 19:50, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Automatic translators are known to be sub par to absolutely horrible at translating text. As someone who speaks French, Hebrew and to a much lesser extent Russian, text that is considered neutral will almost never port well to one language to the another. This is especially true with translators that often times remove phrases, simplify text, mistranslated things as an example "dumber than a rock" doesn't translate into most languages. This explains a large amount of the broken grammar, strange wording, and all the citations being written in German. I don't know if the German version is neutral, I assume it is and it being simply a case of bad translation however this translation isn't. Des Vallee (talk) 21:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Don't automatically translate articles, please and if you do please review them. Did you even review the text before you posted it? Des Vallee (talk) 21:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I did, and you opposed due to it showing the Marxist POV and Marxist terms, as shown in the section above. All of the sudden this is about translation? What. -- BunnyyHop ( talk ) 21:58, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * You just stated that you automatically translated the article from German Wikipedia, which makes a of sense. Des Vallee (talk) 00:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You specifically stated «POV pushing sections that aren't belong in an argumentative essay. It also is completely based around Karl Marx's Das Kapital the definition of a a unreliable primary source to base this article around». But if you changed your mind and this is instead about «mistranslated things», and consensus is the point of this conversation, I don't know why don't you just alter the stuff that is not as well translated, or just point it out that I'd do the job. Reverting the whole edit is just not helpful. Your main point is still the use of Marxist terms to describe Marxist theory, so the translation has little to do with it. -- BunnyyHop ( talk ) 00:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * You seem to have never actually reviewed the page, the article is completely filled with the very definition of absolute propaganda that you added, and everybody can see that simply from looking at the article. It seems however this article is from German Wikipedia which you translated and then added here. You admitted to this. BunnyyHop your edit was pure propaganda everyone can see it, as outlined above. Des Vallee (talk) 01:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Sure, I don't think consensus will ever be reached between us both since you think I added such «horrid propaganda» to the article. -- BunnyyHop ( talk ) 01:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * You aren't responding this is text you put into the article, I also made this clear at the top:
 * "The appropriation of surplus value is not limited to the industrial capitalist who has goods produced or services performed. If he sells below value to a merchant capitalist and the latter resells to realize the value, then the merchant can appropriate some of the surplus value." "The price of labor and the standard of living of the worker may rise. This does not endanger the system. The capitalist mode of production tends to regulate the price of labor power according to the requirements of capital valorization." This does not belong on Wikipedia it belongs in an ML textbook.


 * "In order to overcome exploitation, it would be necessary to eliminate wage labor altogether. The dynamics of the capitalist mode of production produce the conditions for a new society" This is literally plain and simple an argumentative essay, he doesn't even try to hide it, he doesn't even attribute it anybody he at this point is making an argumentative essay. "In order to abolish these relations, "[a]n association must take the place of the old bourgeois society with its classes and class antagonisms," "wherein the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all," (This belongs in a manifesto)


 * "It is true that labor and nature become means of capital exploitation, but the capitalist mode of production systematically corrodes the foundations of wealth" (This is cited not using any actual papers but instead literally Karl Marx's das Kapital). This is a fact? You cite Karl Marx as a primary source and one other mediocre citation and think this enough to state this outlandish statement?


 * "The exploitation of man and nature are also linked at the level of consciousness. The mystification of wages forms a basis for the Trinitarian formula. One aspect of this formula is that man perceives the soil in a mystified way. It appears as if the soil is an independent source of value."


 * This isn't even a tip of the tip of your POV iceberg on this article. Des Vallee (talk) 01:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Great, see how you can point things out objectively? Those escaped me, but it's easily fixable. We could've quickly avoided this long discussion if instead of rambling on about «horrid propaganda» and «Marxist manifestos» you pasted those problematic phrases who lack proper attribution in the first place. I'll fix those up and search for more phrases without proper attribution and create a new edit per WP:BRD. After the edit, if there's any problems left, you can create a new section to objectively point things out about it - not ramble on about «Marxist manifestos» and «Marxist POV». -- BunnyyHop ( talk ) 01:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The citations aren't even translated, hence why all Karl Marx quotes are in German. By reading your edit to me it is extremely easy see, the edit as ripe with Marxist POV. As an example describing people as "imperialists," "comrades," "exploiters," "opportunists," "vanguards" etc... Constantly stating Marxist positions as factual with your only citation being a quote by Karl Marx himself, you at times even post text which goes into try to persuade the reader into being a Marxist. Des Vallee (talk) 02:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Not anymore. BunnyyHop ( talk ) 07:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that there are major NPOV and tone issues here. Right off the bat, this article's first lead paragraph fails to contextualize the phrase within the realm of Marxist theory, which is particularly confusing because "exploitation of labor" in everyday context could easily just be surmised to mean "treating workers poorly". It is unclear how the non-Marxian sections actually represent mainstream, competing interpretations of the theory of exploitation. The section on Liberal theory is predicated entirely off of a single published paper despite acknowledgment that "many" seem to hold that liberalism does not actually have a systematic theory on exploitation of labor. This article reads much more like a research paper than an encyclopedia article. I thik there is some very interesting and useful information in here, but it for sure needs to be heavily revised to comply with an encyclopedic tone and a neutral exposition. WhinyTheYounger (WtY) (talk, contribs)  18:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, to both the editors involved in this discussion, I know these kinds of back-and-forths can be frustrating. I appreciate your apparent willingness to work through these issues, but I think it's really important to understand the objections raised here. It's clear you have a strong grasp of Marxist thought; the challenge is to write that in such a way that a non-Marxist can read and understand it succinctly, and in a way that does not overtly or subtly display preference towards one theory over another. Use of Marxist terms like "exploiter" or "opportunists" needs to be contextualized specifically as Marxist terminology, particularly since those terms are inherently incendiary. Some of this can be easily fixed by just adding a few words and punctuation to make clear the article is not presenting them as necessarily factual information. For example, one might add " In traditional Marxist conceptions of political economy, 'exploiters' are the agents able to command goods..." while also making sure related Marxist terminology is explained clearly. (I am willing to help rewrite/reword some sections if wanted) WhinyTheYounger (WtY) (talk, contribs)  18:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , thanks for taking your time to help us with this section. I see the point, although it might be best if a third perspective could help, especially in the part of writing in a «way that does not overtly or subtly display preference towards one theory over another» that I may not be able to fix by myself, although those you point out were indeed fixed in my edits [for example - see the last paragraph of the diff, «In the Marxist critique of political economy, exploiters appropriate (...)» was replaced with «Exploiters appropriate another's (...)»] but were reverted by our colleague (I dont't understand the point of reverting everything, since you have more experience here, can you help me understand if it's right? I'm afraid to edit any further to add proper attribution since that might or might not be violating WP:3R)). I would appreciate if you could spare more time to help me with this. In the meanwhile, I'll try to find sources to clarify some points, such as the use of «exploited». -- BunnyyHop ( talk ) 19:33, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! I restored the bulk of the text reverted and took a look through before re-reverting myself, because I think it will be easier to go through old revisions and insert what is appropriate piece-by-piece. apologies for the revert.


 * I'll point out a few things that are immediately apparent in Special:Diff/996494846,, that are not suitable from inclusion. First, several sections rely exclusively or almost exclusively on quotations of Marx or Engels. Whether intended or not, that has the effect of turning the article into an essay explaining Marxism, and that's where WP:NPOV comes in. The goal of an article about some facet of a philosophy, belief system, etc. is to explain its fundamentals, its applications, its history, and its criticisms. This is different from recounting every detail of the theory as laid out by its original proponents. The section "Emancipative moment and the abolition of exploitation" is a good example of the problems here—simply summarizing Engels' and Marx's views is not sufficient, and it creates an impression of partiality regardless of intent. This section could likely be reduced to one or two sentences, preferably based on secondary sources. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article about exploitation is very useful in this sense: it is a secondary source based on both quotations of Marx and other communists as well as other secondary sources. This article should draw primarily from materials like SEP rather than Marx and Engels themselves.


 * Also, please note that this will necessarily include strongly critical views of Marx. Des Vallee was correct pointing out elsewhere that revisions like this are inappropriate; even if you think they are unfair, a published academic work in a major journal is a critical viewpoint that may well need to be included in an article. WhinyTheYounger (WtY) (talk, contribs)  23:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , it's way to much to go through, you did the right thing reverting it back. Thanks for trying to make it right, anyway! I'll make a new edit based on the exploitation entry on the standford encyclopedia and the International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences.  BunnyyHop  ( talk ) 01:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Summarisation of both discussions
, please use this category to further discuss this, as the other ones have become too cluttered and the topics are of no use. I'll summarise it for RFC colleagues:

> The translated text [from dewiki] had no attribution on a significant amount of phrases and stated opinions as fact.

> As such, a dispute was opened but not handled correctly, hence the big walls of text.

> We are currently in a process of increasing the WP:NPOV of the article by «pointing things out and fixing».

> Reverted once again due to the «inherent bias» of showing the «marxist POV».

-- BunnyyHop ( talk ) 02:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this edit.
This edit is one of the few correctly cited, generally neutral, non POV pushing information, it's very constructive and helps the article, although it could be improved:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Exploitation_of_labour&diff=996515956&oldid=996514733

Thanks for correctly attributing the source adding "claim" and using correct attribution of what Marx thought instead of stating Marx was correct. Good edit, if you can up this editing I think you could be a great editor. Des Vallee (talk) 08:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you. -- BunnyyHop ( talk ) 20:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion for ongoing revisions
I'm going to try to organize all comments about any ongoing revisions here. , a few things to note about the edit I most recently reverted. To start "most influential theory ever" was indeed an improper thing to include. There are two reasons for this: first, because Karl Marx's theory of exploitation is considered to be the most influential theory ever set forth is not quite what the source says—the SEP entry says it was the most influential theory of exploitation ever set forth. I suspect this is just an issue of wording, but that distinction is important, for obvious reasons. Second, let's assume for the sake of argument the source did say the theory was the most influential ever. It's still our job as editors to contextualize subjective statements even if they're from reliable, respected sources, like SEP. I could probably find a respectable political scientist who has argued that President FDR was the best President ever for the American economy, and I could also probably find someone else who would say the same thing for Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton. But superlative claims—best, worst, greatest, largest, most influential, most creative—are very, very tricky. For something like the world's tallest tower, it can be fairly straightforward: sources can give a tower's height and reasonably state "this is taller than all the others". Obviously, it's harder to do that with something like influence or economy—so whenever you write "X is the most _____", you are actually likely violating WP:NPOV, because there will almost certainly be disagreement among reasonable sources.

It is actually probably true that Marx theory is the most influential theory of exploitation (though remember, Wikipedia is about verifiability of claims, not truth, in my opinion. But we should always be cautious with superlatives. A better way to phrase this would be: ""Karl Marx's theory of exploitation has been described in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as the most influential theory of exploitation" plus a citation. Personally, I think at least two sources are needed for superlative claims (and perhaps more). SEP is very well respected, so you could argue that sentence I just wrote is fine on its own, but it would definitely be strengthened by another citation to a different author. WhinyTheYounger (WtY) (talk, contribs)  03:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for assuming good faith. It is now more obvious that «By far the most influential theory of exploitation ever set forth is that of Karl Marx» is different from «Karl Marx's theory of exploitation is considered to be the most influential theory ever set forth», although it was mostly due to paraphrasing, and that it's not really the best way to put it since it's just one source. this is the closest I got to similar phrasing. It's better if we attribute it to the Encyclopedia, as you stated. -- BunnyyHop ( talk ) 03:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)