Profit as a Product of Capitalism through Labour-power Exploitation

Profit as a Product of Capitalism through Labour-power Exploitation

Capitalism is an essential component in production as it encompasses the exploitation of the labor-power to ensure there is surplus value. The surplus-value in business upon production is known as profit. The running of the daily activities within any production firm must, at all times, be focused on how best to exploit the labor-power to ensure maximum productivity in return, make profits. The most important and crucial aspect is in the compensation of the labor offered by the workforce as this classifies the labor-power to be of value such that it is directly proportional to productivity. The employers should always give reasonable compensation package to ensure workforce motivation hence guarantee surplus-value and substitute the exploitation.

According to Marx (1867), wages and salaries are the price of labor, and the higher the price, the better the quality of the services, and in the end, the production is of good quality. Capitalists ensure maximum exploitation to cover for the compensation packages they offer to their labor subjects; therefore, to some extent, it is a subjective mode of conducting business. The compensation of the labor-power warrants it to be a commodity since the worker sells it to their employer, and in return, the employer offers a wage or a salary as the price. The consumption of the labor force rotates around the identification of necessary and specific skills, directing them to the right market gap, compensating a deserving salary, and ensuring continuity through accommodation of further studies.

Capitalism has the sole purpose of making profits through the exploitation of labor-power. The classification of the labor force as a commodity is essential in the payment of the services offered by the individual to the firm that requires their expertise (Marx 1867, 62). The performance of the worker in actual work results in the production of goods and services in surplus-value than the amount the capitalist sells in the market. My brother-in-law, Steven, works as a chef in a restaurant with a high flow of customers. He works under tight schedules to ensure that the food is sufficient at all times, together with his colleagues in the kitchen. He is compensated through a salary, but in the end, the ultimate profit upon this exploitation of his cooking skill is the restaurant owner. This shows that capitalism employs exploitation of the expertise to ensure that the surplus-value is more at the close of the business day. There is the provision of working over-time with increased pay per hour that one works within the scheduled time in the contract. My brother-in-law has always been available for the overtime hours, as this will ensure he earns more at the end of the month. This, therefore, justifies the exploitation of the human resource in the production of surplus-value because, despite the owner benefiting more, the employee also gets to earn more. There is profit in the long run because the value of the salaries are lower than the amount the capitalist receives in return. The exploitation of the specified labor force will provide quality goods and services, implying that the sales of the firms will rise, leading to maximum profits. Under normal circumstances, the worker is the owner of their labor-power and is at liberty to sell it to anyone. However, some legislations govern the trading of labor, making it not to be considered a free trade, and at times it may be sold against the wishes of the individual. These regulations have the intention of safeguarding the over-exploitation of the workforce by the capitalist and help in preventing under-compensation by the employers. It is also necessary to ensure that the workforce does not overcharge the employers in the services they offer.

Under capitalism, the labor force is subjected to maximum exploitation to realize profits within the firms. Marx claims that “Its value, like that of every other commodity, is already fixed before it goes into circulation since a definite quantity of social labor has been spent upon it; but its use-value consists in the subsequent exercise of its force” (65). The skill in the hotel industry under the restaurant part that my brother-in-law works is the cooking skills of a chef. The specialization is in cooking, while the barista in the coffee section earns a totally different amount as they satisfy a different need of the customer. My brother-in-law turns in as a barista during the weekends at the same restaurant showing how the capitalist who owns the restaurant exploits his potential fully while making profits from the business but at the same time compensates through the salaries. The production cost is an equal of the labor-power value in capitalism where the production cost is the cost of satisfying the needs of society, which is the reason for daily turning up for work. The chef’s role makes my brother-in-law turn up for work, for he knows a job well done will mean guaranteed payment and a sure way to provide for his family. The value of the labor-power dictates the demand commercially since most capitalists tend to employ workers who can yield more profit than the wages they are receiving. The owner of the restaurant ensures that Steven and his colleagues have the necessary skills to ensure flexibility, for example, him working on the weekdays to prepare the main meals while performing the roles of a barista during the weekend. Therefore, the labor-power has a high value in the realization of profits that if it is withdrawn, there will be deterioration of the capital assets.

The owner of the restaurant identified that the demand for coffee is more during the weekend; hence they pointed out that the dedication of an employee (Steven) with that one role will deliver exemplary services and maximize profits. The new products and services will satisfy the business niche that had been identified, and therefore, there are ultimate results often measured through profits (Williams 1992). The sale of the goods and services determines the success of the labor force that has been introduced, focusing majorly on the returns. Steven ensures that there is a variety of coffee at the disposal of the customers; hence, there are maximum profits because there is no customer unsatisfied. He is due to undertake further learning, in August this year, on the preparation of coffee to add more variety and different blending techniques. This will enhance maximum productivity and ensure improvement to tackle new challenges faced by the workforce in their respective fields. Continuity is guaranteed such that the training is defined by correction of the previous irrelevant training and incorporation of new techniques realized from the gaps that exist in the market. The change in technique can also be due to the challenges faced by the personnel in the field hence the need to devise new methods to handle the problems faced.

In conclusion, capitalism plays an essential role in the structuring of the workplace experience through the exploitation of human resource to ensure maximum profits. The main aim of capitalism is to earn a maximum profit while exploiting the labor-power. The techniques and knowledge are owned by the individual, and they are utilized once they get employed at the relevant departments with specific functions depending on the department they can be channeled to ensuring improved profits. The valuation of the labor force has ensured that the workers are compensated for their input into the production. It has enabled the capitalists to attain their targets through the identification of the value a certain workforce can contribute in their quest for maximum production and profit.

Therefore, capitalism, which encompasses the exploitation of the labor force, is the determinant of the market structure and the experiences that are encountered.

References

Marx, K. (1867). 1976. Capital: A critique of political economy, 1. 51-66.

Williams, Michael. “Marxists on money, value and labour-power: a response to Cartelier.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 16.4 (1992): 439-445.