How are workers exploited when they have a choice in working for a boss?

Question

Under Marxist theory, workers are being exploited for their labor and not receiving the full value of their labor. Workers however have a choice in who they work for and how much they earn so how can it be called exploitation? If it because they starve if they do not work, is this not falsified by welfare states, as well as being irrelevant since from what I understand, you still are forced to work if you wish to eat in socialist society, only you have even less say in how much you work for as it is dictated by socially necessary labor time, which is not determined by an individual.

Answer 1

Rather than answering this question directly, I'd like to challenge the question and assumptions behind it. It is true that Marxist theory holds that workers are exploited merely by virtue of having a boss who owns the means of production rather than participates in that production. If some (and in our society, a lot) of the money workers generate through labor goes to their boss, then the workers are always underpaid for the value of their labor.

However, I'd challenge the statement that because workers have a choice in who they work for and how much they earn, they are not exploited. Say that Company A pays their workers $10 per hour to sew clothing. A competitor, Company B, who pays their workers $12 per hour to sew clothing would see their competition keeping $2 more per hour per worker, and they’d realize that they could be doing that as well. If a company’s profit is calculated by the value of their workers’ labor minus the wages they pay their workers, then by lowering their workers’ wages, the company gets to keep more of the leftover money. So Company B lower their wage to $10 per hour too—or maybe $9 per hour so they can keep $3 instead of just $2 and gain a competitive edge over Company A.

You might say that if that happens, the workers could choose to work for a different company or choose to stop working altogether. However, the process I’ve described would prevent workers from choosing to work at a different company that pays them better, because once a handful of companies underpays their workers, the rest of the companies begin to underpay their workers to keep up. So the issue is not merely exploitation by a single company but rather by the entire system. When companies lower their wages nearly simultaneously, any choice and say workers have in the matter is stripped away. And for a worker who’s paid barely enough to afford rent and groceries, it would be very risky to quit their job or organize a strike (for which they are likely to be fired). Because companies often underpay their workers by a lot, the workers are unable to stop working or else they’ll become homeless and starving.

This also applies to jobs without a single boss, like self-employment. Most jobs that fall under the category of self-employment still require dues to be paid to a corporate entity, like an artist paying Etsy to list their art or a freelance consultant having to pay a cut of their earnings to the company that contracted them.

I would also push back against the idea that welfare states solve this issue. Poverty still exists in every country on the planet, despite some countries implementing welfare systems. According to the US Census Bureau, 13% of Americans lived in poverty in 2018, and the average welfare payment in the US was about $400. And according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, food stamp recipients got $127 per month on average, which breaks down to $1.39 per meal. $400 per month and $1.39 per meal are usually nowhere near enough to survive, so Americans are still faced with the issue of labor exploitation even if they receive welfare.

While there are a wide variety of specific models of socialism, in general it is not true that you are forced to work if you wish to eat in a socialist society. Marx popularized the saying, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” meaning that under socialism, no one forces you to work if you are unable, and regardless you still get to eat. The debate as to why anyone would choose to work under socialism is a whole other can of worms, but I’d propose that we’re only asking this question because capitalism has alienated us from each other, and that there are many other reasons one might choose to work besides their desire to keep themself alive. Here’s a helpful summary of the four types of alienation if you’re interested: https://www.thoughtco.com/alienation-definition-3026048

In sum, under socialism people have more say in the kind of work and how much work they do because they are not constrained by corporations’ lowering wages, lack of education, and other factors characteristic of a capitalist society. Rather, they are encouraged to contribute what they can and take what they need (again, this is an extreme simplification of Marxist and socialist theory; I would encourage more research if you’d like to learn the specifics). I hope this has been helpful!