What is exploitation? Marxism has always regarded the elimination of exploitation as one of the basic tasks of the socialist revolution. The chief designer also regards "eliminating exploitation" as a feature of his "socialist essence". However, it is necessary to study in depth what exploitation is. It seems ridiculous to ask this question, because people think it is a very common-sense question, and everyone will blurt out: "Taking other people's labor for free is exploitation." When you open the dictionary, you will also see this explanation: "It refers to a part of people or a social group in society who take the fruits of labor of another part of people or other social groups free of charge by virtue of private means of production or monetary capital." Whether people's common sense thinks that it is "occupying" other people's labor or the dictionary interprets it as "grabbing" other people's labor results, their similarities are "free" possession or grabbing "other people's labor". Let's analyze in detail whether the owners of the means of production or monetary capital in society really "occupy" or rob the labor of "others" for free. Although "exploitation" is a common-sense problem, the common-sense problem is not always obvious, and the common-sense explanation is not necessarily correct. The profound truth contained in it needs to be revealed seriously. What is "free"? The so-called "free" means working for the owner of "means of production or monetary capital" without any remuneration or compensation. Some dictionaries will use "political privilege violence to seize the fruits of people's labor" and also include "exploitation", which is obviously beyond the scope of economics. According to the traditional explanation, since exploitation is a natural production relationship after the productive forces have developed to a certain level, not only the violent seizure beyond the economy should not be included in the scope of exploitation, but also the "exploitation" in normal economic relations can not be regarded as a major infringement itself, and it should be a high-level production relationship that promotes the development of productive forces. Otherwise, it is hard for us to imagine how human society has been running in an abnormal state for thousands of years and created such a rich social civilization. Therefore, it is necessary to re-examine the so-called "exploitation" and set things right in theory. First of all, let's look at what kind of social conditions can occupy and snatch the fruits of others' labor. Under normal circumstances, a person or a group must have two conditions to possess the fruits of others' labor: one is that the wealth created by others' labor in use must be surplus in addition to maintaining the basic life of the workers themselves. In other words, only when workers have the ability to work that others can have, others can have it, otherwise it will push workers to the wall. At the early stage of the development of human society, captured prisoners of war were killed because they could not create excess wealth, and it was useless to keep them; Later, they turned them into slaves instead of killing, because the social productive forces had increased to the point that the wealth created by prisoners' labor was not only for their own consumption, but also a little surplus. This basic principle of historical materialism will be understood by anyone who has a little knowledge of Marxism. The second condition is that some people do not have or do not fully have the material conditions necessary for labor-the means of production. In order to survive, they either turned themselves into the private property of the slave owners like the slave society and handed over the labor force to the slave owners for use; Or, like feudal society, work on rented land; Or, as in capitalist society, let the "usufructuary right" of their own labor force to capitalists for use within a certain period of time. Only in this way can the labor ability of workers be brought into play and used, and the survival of workers can be guaranteed. In other words, only under these circumstances can people who own the means of production occupy the labor of others. Otherwise, with the means of production, workers can combine their own labor force with their own means of production to form an actual labor process and create wealth for their own enjoyment. In this case, others can't possess and grab his labor. Secondly, let's analyze whether the labor is still owned by the laborer when the labor ability is used by others. In the three-level society experienced by human beings, it can be roughly divided into two situations: the first situation is that labor and its products are owned by the owners of the means of production. Slave society need not be elaborated. Slaves in that society not only have their own labor, but also have their own bodies. Logically, the slave owner combined all the labor elements that belonged to him, and the labor formed and its products belonged to the slave owner. Even if slaves are provided with the necessary means of subsistence, it is also to maintain and protect the property owned by slave owners from shrinking and dying. In capitalist society, laborers sell their labor "income right" to capitalists in the labor market within a certain period of time, and capitalists combine the purchased labor with their own means of production to form realistic labor practice and create wealth. Whether the labor in these two cases, whether it is living labor (labor process) or materialized labor (product), still belongs to the undertaker of labor? Obviously no longer, because when the labor force is used and developed into labor, it no longer belongs to the laborers, but becomes the property of capitalists and slave owners. Of course, the fruits of their labor should be owned by capitalists and slave owners, so there is no way to occupy and rob the labor of "others" In the second case, the labor force and its products are owned by different people. In feudal society, the labor rent refers to the peasants' "usufructuary right" of their labor to the landlord after renting the landlord's land, and the landlord combines the labor exchanged for the land use right with his own land to form real labor, and his labor and products are owned by the landlord; Tenants work on the leased land after paying the labor rent, while yeomen work on their own land, and their labor and products are owned by themselves; Tenants who rent in kind, part of their labor and products are owned by themselves and part by the landlord. Therefore, only the land rent in kind is a part of the labor owned by the laborer and its products, and part of it is "grabbed" and "occupied" by the landlord, but this is voluntary. Can it be said to be "grabbing" and "occupying"? Therefore, what people generally call "grabbing", "possessing" and "other people's labor" are inaccurate and unscientific. In slave society, slave owners occupy not only the slave's labor force, but the whole slave; In capitalist society, capitalists rent out the "usufruct" of workers' labor for a certain period of time. Workers' labor and its products in factories are no longer owned by workers, but by capitalists, so there is no "grab" or "possession" of workers' labor and its products by capitalists. Capitalists and workers are willing to rent and buy labor in the labor market, and there is no looting and possession; After the capitalist rents out the labor force, when it uses the labor force to form labor, it will no longer be owned by the workers, let alone seized and possessed. Thirdly, in any normal economic activity, there is no "free possession", and the so-called "free possession" of others' labor does not exist in any normal economic life. Since mankind entered the class society, whether the ancient slave owners paid for slaves, the medieval landlords paid for tenants, or the modern capitalists paid for workers, the former paid for the latter's labor without compensation. The only difference is that the forms of compensation are different, and the compensation is more or less. The necessity and inevitability of this kind of compensation is not because of the kindness of the former, but because of the objective economic laws at work. If the former does not give the latter some compensation, or the degree of compensation is not enough to maintain the simple reproduction of labor, then both slave owners, landlords and capitalists will be unable to continue production because of the loss of suitable labor, and workers will be forced to rebel, thus making the rulers restless. The prosperous period in history is generally a period of "compensation" for workers; It was those improper "compensations" that forced the workers to revolt and the society was in an uproar. Throughout the class society for thousands of years, although slave peasant uprisings and workers' strikes have occurred from time to time, the society is still stable and stable most of the time, which proves that "compensation" is appropriate and appropriate in most cases. Workers' uprisings and strikes forced rulers to give up "exorbitant taxes" and implement "light taxes and reduced taxes" to improve wages and benefits, which is the correction of improper payment by society. If thousands of years of class society were unfair rewards most of the time, human society would have collapsed. The reason why it has not reached this point is that it is developing and progressing continuously, which proves that the compensation for workers is generally appropriate, not to mention the "free" possession of workers' labor and their products. The so-called "free grab" and "free possession" have become false subjective fabrications. Don't "free grab" and "free possession" exist at all? That's not true. But it only exists outside the normal economic life, such as robbery, theft, corruption, bribery and so on. Since workers are paid in all normal economic life, there is no question of "free". Is there no "exploitation" under any circumstances? Capitalists have surplus value. If it's not exploitation, what is it? It is not objective and unfair to call profits surplus value. Who is "surplus"? Obviously for the workers. Only from the standpoint of workers can we think that profits other than wages and other benefits are "surplus", that is, what workers do not get directly is "surplus" But for the whole society, there is no "surplus" As we have analyzed before, even the pure profits owned by capitalists are not all consumed by capitalists and their families. Most, even the vast majority, are used to expand reproduction and serve the society. A capitalist is a capitalist because the purpose of his business is not mainly for the consumption of his family, but to continuously expand the scale of production and provide use value for the society, otherwise he is a self-sufficient individual worker. Capitalists are veritable entrepreneurs, and their social responsibility is mainly to create wealth for society, not just for their own consumption. From the point of view of production, it is reasonable and correct as long as the remuneration paid to the laborer is enough to enable him to expand and reproduce the labor force, make the social production have enough labor sources and ensure that the social production can be carried out normally. As for the profits obtained by capitalists, the more the total amount, the smaller the proportion used for their own consumption, and the greater the proportion of the part that serves the society, that is, the greater the contribution to society. Bill Gates, the richest man in the world, is the largest capitalist and "knowledge family" in the world. What a great contribution he has made to mankind! He never travels first class, but spends a lot of money on expanding reproduction and charity. Can he be said to be the biggest exploiter? I'm afraid only people with mental disorders will have such an idea. However, if we follow Marx's surplus value theory, we must think that he is the biggest exploiter. To say the least, in order not to exploit, we have to distribute all the profits to the workers. If so, what is left of the owner of the means of production? Only the cost he invested. If he wants to produce, he can only beat around the bush in simple reproduction. What is there to expand reproduction? Society can only stand still, and there will be no development and progress at all. Is this the purpose of eliminating exploitation? However, the result of light splitting can only be like this. Is it fair that the means of production are used by workers for free? Moreover, what we are talking about here is not self-sufficient individual labor, but the labor of slaves, tenant farmers and hired laborers. Slave owners, landlords and capitalists did not enjoy success. They must engage in management, which is also a kind of labor. How can all the fruits of labor be owned by others? In fact, the wealth and value created belong to workers' wages and various benefits, and the remaining "surplus value" is not entirely owned by capitalists, who have to pay taxes and serve the society. When Marx denounced La Salle's "out-and-out labor income" in Critique of the Gotha Program, he correctly pointed out that six deductions must be made before personal distribution, among which the other five are basically deducted from the surplus value, except for "the part used to compensate for the consumption of means of production", and he thinks these deductions are necessary for the future society. In capitalist society, how can these same inferences be unnecessary? Are these deductions only beneficial to capitalists and unnecessary to society and workers? Which reason is this? Is it really impossible to have any exploitation in daily economic relations? That's not true. Exploitation will still happen. It exists in the following situations: when the wealth or value created by a laborer in productive labor is equal to or greater than his own labor cost, but the reward he gets is lower than the labor cost, exploitation arises. As we have analyzed before, this situation will not be a common phenomenon, nor will it last for a long time, and society itself will correct it in time. As for people with public power who use their power to seek rent and take bribes, it is exploitation, of course, but it is no longer a normal economic relationship. The current corruption in our country belongs to this situation, and it is urgent to solve it through political system reform. Why is it fair for workers to get labor? This is because the laborer only consumes physical strength in labor, but his intelligence is not consumed, and he still adds value in labor-his skills will be more skilled, his understanding of labor materials and labor objects will be deeper, and his intelligence will be improved; And the cost of paying him intelligence can be used to learn inner scientific and technological knowledge, so that his labor force can be expanded and reproduced.

How is surplus value created? There is a long-debated question in economics, that is, how to create surplus value? How is it formed? Why is the surplus value more than the cost price of production? How is it formed? If Marx attaches too much importance to the role of the proletariat because of his political inclination, can people objectively and fairly explore the real source of surplus value? I think this can be done. First of all, the sale of labor "usufructuary right" in a certain period of time is not equivalent exchange. Marx believes that the transformation of labor into commodities is the most fundamental difference between capitalist exploitation and other forms of exploitation. As we all know, commodity exchange and commodity trading are the transfer of ownership, from one party to the other. In fact, in the capitalist relations of production, the ownership of the labor force has not changed. In this regard, Marx has the following discussion in Das Kapital: "If we want to maintain this relationship, the labor owner must always sell the labor force in a certain period of time, because he wants to sell all the labor force at once, he will sell himself, and he will become a slave from a free man and a commodity owner. As a man, he must always regard his own labor force as his own property and thus as his own commodity. To do this, it must always let the buyer only temporarily dominate his labor force and use his labor force for a certain period of time, that is, he will not give up his ownership of it when transferring his labor force. " This last sentence is not accurate. Labor owners do not "transfer" all their labor to capitalists, but only transfer the "usufructuary right" of labor within a certain period of time. Since "he didn't give up the ownership of his own labor force when he transferred it", it means that the capitalist didn't buy the ownership of the labor force, and its ownership is still in the hands of the workers and has not been transferred. This also shows that the exchange between capitalists and workers is not a buying and selling relationship of labor, but a leasing relationship. The labor market is not a real commodity market, but a leasing market. This is determined by the particularity of the nature of the labor force: the labor force is something inside the laborer, not something outside. Without the laborer, it cannot exist alone, which determines that it is different from ordinary goods. If you insist that it is also a commodity, it is a special commodity, and special rules should be followed in the process of buying and selling-not the transfer of labor ownership, but the transfer of income rights within a certain period of time, and the owner of labor can recover it in time, so it can only be sold for a period of time, not once, otherwise he will become a lifelong slave. This is the separation of ownership and use right in economics. This separation occurred not only in capitalist society, but also in the labor rent in feudal society, that is, the landlord exchanged the usufructuary right of the land for the usufructuary right of the tenant farmer's labor force. If this exchange also belongs to capitalism, wouldn't it have happened in feudal society? What capitalists buy is not the ownership of the labor force, but its right to use, which must be used in accordance with the agreed conditions and returned to the workers at the expiration of the agreement. Just like the owner of the machine tool rents it out to others, the lessor will return it on time after using it if the conditions are agreed in advance. If there is any damage, compensation will be made according to the degree of damage. The difference is that the owners of other properties don't have to go with the rented property, but the owners of labor don't have to go. He must follow the labor force, and the renter must respect the personality of the laborer and must never use it like a slave. In this respect, it is inappropriate for Marx to call proletarians slaves. According to the theory of surplus value created by Marx, capitalists buy workers' labor in the labor market according to the principle of equivalent exchange, so how to determine the value of labor? In this regard, Marx wrote in Das Kapital: "The value of labor is the value of maintaining the means of subsistence needed by labor owners." "The sum of the means of subsistence should be enough to enable individual workers to maintain their lives under normal living conditions." "The value of labor can be attributed to the value of a certain number of means of subsistence. Therefore, it also changes with the value of these means of subsistence, that is, the amount of labor time required to produce these means of subsistence. " "The minimum value or minimum value of the labor force is the value of the goods that the undertaker of the labor force can't update his life process if he can't get it every day, that is, the value of the necessary means of subsistence to maintain his body." In this case, it is fair and reasonable for the capitalist, as the buyer of labor, to pay "a certain amount of the value of the means of subsistence" to the seller of labor, and it is said that it is actually done. But the problem comes out: (1) "the value of a certain number of means of subsistence" is only the production cost of labor, and it is by no means the total value of labor; (2) Like any production, the purpose of workers' labor production is not just to obtain cost, but to obtain new value. Production is necessary, because the use value of various factors of production can not meet the needs of society. Production is essentially to create new use value, and it is by no means a simple addition of the original use values of various production factors. Of course, the new use value should have new exchange value, and it is by no means a simple addition of the original values of various production factors, that is, it is by no means the production cost of the new use value, but the re-creation of the new value; (3) Therefore, in fact, capitalists buy labor at the cost price of labor, which is an unequal exchange. He took advantage of this and of course secretly enjoyed it. After the labor force is put into production, the new value higher than the labor cost is transferred to new products, which is an important source of surplus value. The second source is that any production can not be separated from energy sources such as sunlight and oxygen provided by nature free of charge, and it is absolutely impossible to form the actual production process of various valuable factors. Oxygen, in particular, is an indispensable production factor for labor and combustion. Because they are provided by nature for free, people often don't care. Once they are missing, people will feel the necessity of their existence. Because they are provided by nature for free, they will not occupy a place in the product cost, but because they participate in the use value and value re-creation, they naturally become an important source of surplus value. Thirdly, intelligence in the labor force is a special factor of production. Its particularity lies not only in the fact that it is an element of labor force, but also in the fact that it will never wear out in use, and it will also add new energy-the intelligence and skills of workers will not disappear because of use, and they will gain new knowledge and become smarter and more skilled in use. When they are put into use again, they will become free acquired capabilities, and they will have no place in the cost of products. This is another important source of surplus value. Fourth, capitalist production is different from individual small-scale production in natural economy, and large-scale factory production cannot be without the regulation and management of the whole production process. Capitalists, factory owners, directors, managers and other regulators also participate in new use value and value re-creation. Their labor is also one of the important sources of surplus value. When Marx specifically demonstrated that surplus value belongs entirely to workers and laborers, for example, workers have created the value of their own labor in the first six hours of labor, and the last six hours of labor have created surplus value for capitalists. People have reason to ask: since the value of labor paid by capitalists to workers is "the value of a certain number of means of subsistence", the sum of these means of subsistence should be enough to enable workers to maintain themselves under normal living conditions, and its "minimum or minimum is that the undertaker of labor can not update the value of goods in its life process every day", and "like the value of any other goods, the value of labor is also produced and reproduced by this special item. Then, if the socially necessary labor time required to produce the value of labor force is 6 hours, why can this labor force engage in 12 hours of socially necessary labor after it is put into production? Where does the energy of six hours of extra labor come from? This proves that buying and selling in the labor leasing market is not equivalent exchange. Furthermore, in twelve hours of labor time, why can only six hours produce the value of labor? Why not eight hours, ten hours or more? How do you calculate these six hours? Moreover, in all civilized countries, the working hours of a day are legal, and capitalists have no right to increase working hours at will. If they work overtime outside the legal working hours, they must pay double compensation. So Marx's example can't stand scrutiny and can't explain the problem. When discussing the process of transforming labor into labor, Marx wrote: "The exertion of labor is labor, which consumes a certain amount of muscles, nerves and brains. And these expenses must be compensated again. "We are still talking about only the physiological cost, not including intelligence. However, as mentioned above, intelligence is an indispensable ability in the labor force. The fundamental difference between intelligence and physical strength lies in: although intelligence participates in the use value and value re-creation, it will not wear out, but will increase in value; Physical strength will be gradually consumed in use and must be replenished in time. It is a fatal mistake of Marx's surplus value theory to exclude the key role of intelligence in the process of creating surplus value. In the lease relationship of labor force, why only trade at cost price? If this unequal exchange only happens on individual occasions, it will not affect the normal operation of the economy and society; The problem is that this is a common phenomenon. Why not hinder the normal operation of the economy? This is because all kinds of necessary means of subsistence are transformed into the material basis of labor ability. Besides valuable things such as food, clothing, housing and transportation, sunshine, air and rain are all factors of production provided by nature free of charge. The transformation of various means of subsistence into various physiological functions is also completed by the living body itself, which is the self-creation of the living body. In particular, the material basis of intelligence, that is, the unique brain of human beings, is copied by organisms themselves. In other words, all kinds of necessary means of subsistence are transformed into the material basis of certain labor ability, which is largely the self-creation of nature, and workers do not participate in processing and production. All kinds of means of subsistence are only the labor objects of productive labor, and the labor materials of productive labor are the self-replication ability of organisms. Therefore, if it is only in this respect, it is not wrong to trade only at the cost price of labor production, and Marx said that the sale of labor use rights in a certain period is equivalent exchange, which is basically limited to this. However, the material basis of working ability alone cannot naturally form a certain working ability. Wolf children in India are an obvious example. Although she has the physiological functions that people should have, she still has no ability to work because she lives and grows up in wolves. To form a certain working ability, what else is needed besides the necessary material foundation and physiological function? Education and study are also needed! Without a certain education and study, it is impossible for any natural person to acquire a certain ability to work. Moreover, the more the society develops, the more important the role of education and learning in the formation of labor ability, especially in the new era of knowledge economy. Although Marx also mentioned that "this kind of education fee ... is included in the total value consumed by productive labor". But unfortunately, he added a note "-very small for ordinary labor. As a quantifier, "micro" refers to one millionth of a physical quantity. " "tiny" means less than one in a million, which can be ignored. But this is not the case. Even in the era when Marx lived, the industrialized production of capitalism needed skilled workers with certain scientific knowledge and skills. To acquire certain scientific knowledge and skills, it is mainly through education. The higher the demand for workers' scientific and technological level, the more they invest in education. Even self-study requires a certain fee. In the new era of knowledge economy, workers are required to have a fairly high level of science and technology. If/kloc-0.00 years ago, going to college was a right enjoyed by a few people, now going to college in China has almost become the greatest expectation of every family for their children, and the cost of raising children accounts for most of the family income. If a person wants to find a better job, he can only sigh without a college degree. How can we say that the education fee is "negligible"? ! In developed countries, people with higher education account for 25% of the population, which shows that the cost of education can never be ignored. Therefore, Marx's assertion that educational expenses are "in the total value consumed by productive labor" and "negligible for ordinary labor" is incorrect. The reason why he said this proves that his focus is still on the physiological cost of physical strength, which is Marx's consistent guiding ideology. It is this guiding ideology that makes his theory of surplus value lose its scientificity.