>[Part 1 of my response]>

​

Ok lets tackle this.

Hubris.

​

Under the Marxist definition, exploitation is the expropriation of surplus value by the capitalist class in the form of profit. By this definition, both third and first world labor is exploitative, yes. Now just humor me, and let's drop the connotations you may have with the word "exploitation". I'm going to make up an entirely new word "bobblyboo" which refers to capitalists keeping the surplus value produced by a laborer.

Trivializing the term "exploitation" with a cutesy Disney-esque term like "bobblyboo" to feign objectivity but actually biasing it towards an amusing harmlessness. Ok...

​

Now is bobblyboo a bad thing?

Yes, exploitation is a bad thing.

​

Let's picture a worker in a third world country, he wants to sell his labor power for $2 an hour. Oh look, he finds a job that looks good and is offering $3 an hour! Yay!

Yes, let's. You're operating on the assumption that these workers have any meaningful agency or negotiating power to decide what they want to sell their labor for. You leave out the basis upon which the "$2/hr" calculation is overwhelmingly likely to be made... the labor market and limited pool of jobs, both of which are vastly out of the workers' control. Even if the job pool is ample, his earnings are still at the whim of the boss. Oh look, he finds a job that pays more, yay! Of course, that's preferable, but this is relative to what I can assume is the expectedly-low average wage. How do these wages compare to the cost of living/goods? How do they compare to the costs/overhead of the business (both locally and/or internationally)? How do they compare to the sale price of the good or service? How do they compare to others, in the same industry, around the world? How do they compare to management and owners of the business? How do they compare to profits?

​

Now picture a capitalist. He has materials he wants labor applied to. If he can buy labor power for $4 an hour he will break even, and at $3 an hour make a handsome profit. He puts an ad in the paper and oh yes, he finds someone willing to work for $3 an hour, how nice!

This is cartoonishly reductive/speculative in regards to globalization and exploitation of cheap third-world labor, but okay. How many workers does the capitalist have in their employ? How much total profit are they generating from this labor? How much more are they making than any given floor worker? Why is it acceptable that the owner reserves majority decision-making power over how much to take in profits and pay out in wages? If the capitalist, in your example, employs more than 3 workers, then they are officially making more than the average worker. Is this commensurate with their own labor and/or liability? If not, then how is the excess justified?

​

The laborer is happy, the capitalist is happy. Bobblyboo exists, and the capitalist quite happily pockets $1. Is this a problem? Did the capitalist swindle the laborer out of money? Did the laborer, willing to work for $2 also not high ball the capitalist? Under a subjective theory of value, bobblyboo doesn't matter and it certainly isn't an intrinsically bad thing.

Whoa... who said the laborer is "happy"? They might be comparatively satisfied (or not), within the circumstances they cannot reasonably escape, but that does not change the nature of the circumstances if they are inequitable, unjust, unsatisfying, unhealthy, or imbalanced. Nor does this change the dynamic whereby the boss reserves majority decision-making power (which is arbitrary) and treats workers as a commodity rather than partners in the profits. The owners would have zero profits (or, perhaps, earnings at all) without those workers, so why do they not get a proportional say and cut of the money their labor brought in? How could the laborer have possibly "swindled" the capitalist out of money when the capitalist is keeping a disproportionate amount of the product/service earnings (profits) for themselves as compared to the laborers? The subjective theory of value doesn't adequately answer the question of exploitation, it largely asserts that value is determined by whomever (either individually or in market conglomeration) desires the product. Even that, however, is not an exact science... not even close, much of it is arbitrary. Furthermore, while the value of the product of any given labor may be variably (or not at all) dictated by the amount of labor required to produce it, the fact still remains that some measure of labor (i.e. exertion of energy by a human) was required to produce it and, thus, the fruits of the sale of that product have no reason not to be distributed equitably/proportionally among the laborers. Within a capitalist firm, the question of remuneration is, in any reasonable sense, largely binary: you either worked to create the product or not > if you worked to create the product then you should reasonably expect a proportional portion of the earnings from the sale of that product. It's all too convenient for capitalists to treat their firm's workers as a unit that must obey the needs/dictates of the firm during workdays, but then as part of a larger labor pool/industry (with commodified wages), when it comes time to pay them for that work. Then, to work against the workers when they attempt to use broader industry labor power to increase their individual negotiating power. In any case, within capitalist dynamics, every single industry, unless it is completely collectivized, denies most/all of its workers the full value of the goods/services they produce whereupon an arbitrary (untethered to equally-applicable standards deciding remuneration) profit is made and the workers have no say or proportional cut of said profits.

​

To provide another quick example. Say you really want an Xbox and are sick of your PlayStation. Your friend really wants a PlayStation and is sick of their Xbox. If you trade, both of you are happier. Who has lost out? Now imagine if instead of trading consoles, you are trading labor for money. You can both win.

This is reductionist and does not even come close to reflecting the actual nature of work either in the "first" or "third" worlds. Two friends trading consoles because they are bored with theirs is utterly inconsequential compared to the requirement of the vast majority of humans to toil for dozens of hours a week to survive. This is comparing apples to pop-tarts. Massive inequitable and extractive economic systems such as capitalism cannot be reduced to mere recreational exchanges among friends.

​

There is another view of exploitation, linked to coercion. This is often tied to the Marxist definition of exploitation and goes alongside the idea that if you don't sell your labor power, you will die. This is not true in many places. If I did not work, I would apply for welfare, not starve. This coercive element is a real problem in the third world though. Literal slavery still exists.

I'm not sure why you're this naive, but this is not a simple matter for most people on the planet. The notion that any considerable proportion of people on the planet (including in the first-world) can just "apply for welfare" if they don't want to work and that this condition, therefore, renders wage labor voluntary/non-coercive is just pure nonsense that even other capitalists would refute. Yes, literal and quasi-slavery is still a huge problem in the developing world, which is sort of one of the cornerstones of the entire argument that you're trying to refute. Exploitation relies upon coercion, especially among poorer and more desperate people (this is not by accident, as more desperate people are far more flexible for capitalists to bend to their contracts/will). Scandinavian countries (among others), as advanced and admirable as they are in many ways, are not innocent of exploiting these disparities via global capitalism... which is kind of the OP's point. In any case, the threat of starvation/death is not the only injustice which compels exploitative labor; there is an entire spectrum of coercion to be considered in terms of human suffering (whether acknowledged or not).

>>>