Explain and Assess Marx's Claims That the Capitalist Extracts Ð''surplus Value' from His/her Labourers, and That This Constitutes Exploitation.

Marx finds himself with an economic dilemma Ð'- capitalism and its systematic ability to maintain a profit. With this quandary Marx finds himself with the conclusion that a profit produced by a capitalist system intrinsically relies upon an exploitative relationship between that of the capitalist and the worker.

The labour power produced by the worker is likened to that of a commodity, which like any other commodity on the market can be sold, bought and exchanged Ð'- and like any other commodity, labour power has its very own value.

Ð''The labour [Ð'...] that forms the substance of value is homogeneous human labour, expenditure of uniform labour power' (M.461).

According to Marx's theory the worker must create the value of his or labour through hours worked (this idea is induced by a greater scheme of rations for exchange which will be explained later in the essay) and exchange those hours worked, for other commodities with similar hours worked upon, Jonathan Wolff explains this as Ð''a worker needs a basket of commodities in order to survive' he goes on to explain that what makes up the basket, is fours hours worth of labour, for the worker to be able to obtain this much needed basket, he or she must create the equivalent value of labour.

However a capitalist society does not work on a system in which a worker, labours for what is needed and only that, a worker instead according to Marx hires out his or her own labour like the commodity it is to the capitalist, because of this, a worker, will in reality labour for as long as he or she is contracted to do so.

Therefore the first four hours laboured have created the necessary means for the worker to obtain the goods, i.e. other commodities that will allow him or her to survive, hours after that, given to the capitalist are a Ð''surplus', it is this Ð''surplus' labour that creates Ð''surplus' value and is this value that maintains profit in a capitalist system. The understanding of exploitation is the inadvertently exploitative process in which the capitalist extracts the surplus.

Marx states that only labour can produce wealth because without labour no product can be created (even machinery must first be created at the hands of man) however, in capitalist society labourers only receive a small wage, a small part of the wealth that they have created, this happens ultimately because it is the nature of capitalism. Thus the majority of society's members, the proletariat, usually work for and are exploited by the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie exploits its workers by extracting Ð''surplus' value i.e. the difference between the value of the work done and the wages paid.

Capitalism as we know it can be described as Ð''an economic, political and social system based on private ownership of property, business and industry, and directed towards making the greatest possible profits for successful organisations and people

Marx originated the notion that capitalism directed labour towards the production of commodities (goods that are exchanged in the market) but more significantly; that labour itself too became a commodity within the capitalist system. Marx theorized that because products and labour had become simple commodities in exchange for money, the individuals and their products too had become Ð''objects' within the market, ready to be bought, sold and exchanged.

A commodity as we recognises it to be defined, can be explained as Ð''a substance or product that can be traded bought or sold' , Marx takes what seems a simple enough understanding of a commodity, and terms it in relationship to labourers or more pragmatically the assimilation of a labourer and their labour into that definition that holds a human being as a commodity, something that can be bought or sold.

In detail Marx explains the commodity further as a Ð''use-value', that being an object with a particular use and an Ð''exchange value' a particular something or commodity that can be exchanged for another particular commodity with a ration scheme. Marx argues like other economists and social commentators such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau that a society's first prerogative must be to produce use-values or commodities with use-value if it is to progress and survive.

Understanding exchange is therefore an important aspect of Marx's theory of labour, if one is able to assess Marx's claims of exploitation as it seems that it must begin form his understanding of exchange value Ð'- according to Marx the value of exchange relies on how much labour was involved in making the objects and as Jonathan Wolff points out Ð''and in producing the machines used in their production as well as the immediate raw materials from which the objects are made from '. Thus groups of commodities with the same labour input will have the same value.

For some this ratio worked out by Marx will not be a convincing theory, is it necessary that labour is what gives a commodity its value, surely other factors must impose something on the equilibrium of value Ð'- surely the demand for a good in a market will also affect the exchange-value of a particular good if one is to understand Ð''exchange-value' as Ð''price, and labour denoting that price.

For example, it may take many hours to produce a Ð''French cabinet' however there is no demand for Ð''French cabinets Ð'- instead there has been a Ð''craze' for new Ikea made cabinets, that can be made in only a couple of hours, compared to the many of the Ð''French Cabinet', the creator or the capitalist wanting to sell the cabinet can not cost the cabinet on only how much labour was involved in making the object, but must also take into consideration that his or her product is no longer in demand and must create a price that will allow consumers to buy the Ð''French cabinet'. If the capitalist uses only how much labour went into the object Ð'- in this instance many, the capitalist risks alienating his minor market, i.e. why would an individual pay lots of money for an object that is not in demand, fashion, highly regarded at that point Ð'- whereas the owner of Ikea, will be able to sell his product or in Marx's terms the Ð''surplus' value for a much higher price Ð'- he or she is able to do that, as there is a demand for his or her product.

Elster would argue that the point raised here is an unsatisfactory criticism, as Marx did not necessarily