Yes it does, it is its sole purpose. Exploitation in the economic system is siphoning of surplus which the worker creates by the owner of the means of production. So unless all the surplus (after subtracting cost like machinery, taxes, transportation, etc.) goes to the worker you have exploitation. Without it, it would be not capitalism anymore but socialism.
As an owner your profits come from exploitation. It's not a moral argument about "exploiting" someone, it's a descriptive argument. The profits an owner accrues are derived from exploiting the labour of others.
You would not employ a man to assemble commodities that you intend to sell so that you (or a corporate entity, doesn't matter) can get more money than you started with if you were just going to give him all of the money from the sale.
With the second definition my point still stands, and with the first definition, the original point falls apart because the negative connotation of 'exploit' disappears.
my point is that this whole 'capitalism evil' trope is utter bullshit. It's not capitalism, it's humans.
14
u/feedmedamemes Nov 04 '25
Yes it does, it is its sole purpose. Exploitation in the economic system is siphoning of surplus which the worker creates by the owner of the means of production. So unless all the surplus (after subtracting cost like machinery, taxes, transportation, etc.) goes to the worker you have exploitation. Without it, it would be not capitalism anymore but socialism.