ReillyT
Senior Member
Capitalism is "exploitation" only in the sense of seeking profit. Profit is a powerful motive which leads to lots of progress that winds up actually helping the "proletariat". Just look at the shining example of the United States our poor are considered rich in other countries....we're not exactly an "exploited" people in the negative sense.
Socialism is more exploitive than capitalism because the state forcibly takes from one to give to another....forced exploitation is far worse than profit-oriented exploitation.
I don't think he is talking about Western European socialism. He is discussing socialism as envisioned by Marx.
Capitalism is exploitative because a small group own the means of production and extract the surplus value of the workers to accumulate capital. That is its function.
Socialism (as envisioned by Marx) would involve the workers owning the means of production themselves and enjoying the profits of that production themselves. There is no need for state redistribution in this model, although presumably there would be some.
However, taking your interpretation of socialism as a starting point, what is normatively worse about exploitation from the state than exploitation from the factory owner? Does the worker feel less pain when the factory owner takes his productivity than when the state does?
I don't disagree that capitalism functions better as a system, but other than that, I don't see one form of exploitation as being any better than another.
I was actually wondering what kind of theoretical model he's referring to that would be implemented after the Marxist revolution....
Marxist communism (or socialism). Marx theorized about a social model after the revolution where the workers own the means of production.