The Origins of Marx’s Concept of Exploitation and Its Contemporary Value

The concept of exploitation was not invented by Marx; he borrowed it from the Saint-Simonians. Driven by the theme of the exploitation of man by man, Saint-Simonism interpreted the evolution of society, and as early as 1848 it gained attention by adopting the end of the exploitation of man by man as a political slogan. But there is no doubt that it is thanks to Marx’s interpretation that the concept of exploitation has become an important concept not only in left-wing political discourse but also in social theory and political economy. At the same time, the concept of exploitation has lost much of its theoretical luster. Although it still belongs to the common vocabulary of critical social theory, it is either negated by the evolution of thought in philosophy and the social sciences, or, because it can no longer accurately grasp the salient features of the contemporary world, it is often regarded theoretically as outdated. In Western theoretical circles, some economists denounce the theory of value presupposed by the Marxist concept of capitalist exploitation, while some philosophers and sociologists are convinced that this concept is characterized by an untenable economic reductionism, thus going hand in hand with theories of inequality and structural domination. At the level of empirical research, there are views emphasizing that the current forms of profit production and the production and reproduction of structural inequality are so far removed from those analyzed by Marx that the Marxist concept of exploitation can no longer effectively perform the function entrusted to it. There are also supplementary views that current class relations and forms of social domination are no longer as simple as those described by Marxist exploitation theory. Faced with these objections, theoretical circles generally adopt one of two attitudes: one is to abandon the use of this concept; the other is based on the conviction that contemporary society is characterized by the continued existence of capitalist exploitation, with some forms of exploitation remaining consistent with the past while others have been thoroughly renewed and enriched. This article adopts the second attitude, arguing for the necessity of the concept of exploitation from two main aspects: defending the concept of exploitation against the criticisms it has received, and updating the Marxist analysis of capitalist exploitation.

剥削的概念不是马克思发明的，而是马克思从圣西门主义者那里借来的。圣西门主义以人剥削人这一主题为驱动，对社会的演变进行了诠释，早在 1848 年，它们就将结束人剥削人作为政治口号而受到关注。但毫无疑问，正是由于马克思的诠释，剥削的概念不仅在左翼政治话语中，而且在社会理论与政治经济学中都已成为一个重要概念。与此同时，剥削的概念也失去了很多理论色彩，虽然它仍属于社会批判理论中的常用词汇，但它要么被哲学与社会科学中的思想演变所否定，要么因为不再能够准确把握当今世界的显著特征，经常在理论上被看作是过时的。在西方理论界，一些经济学家贬斥马克思主义的资本主义剥削概念所预设的价值理论，而一些哲学家和社会学家则确信这个概念以站不住脚的经济还原论为特征，从而与不平等和结构性支配的理论相伴而生。在经验研究层面有观点强调，当下的利润生产形式以及结构性不平等的生产与再生产形式，与马克思所分析的那些形式相差甚远，以至于马克思的剥削概念无法继续有效地履行人们寄予它的职能。还有一些补充观点认为，当下的阶级关系与社会支配形式不再像马克思主义的剥削理论所描述的那样简单。面对这些异议，理论界大致会出现两种态度：一种是放弃使用这一概念；而另一种则是基于这样的信念，即当代社会的特点表现为资本主义剥削的持续存在，剥削形式中的一部分仍旧与之前保持一致，另一部分则得到了彻底的更新与丰富。本文采用第二种态度，主要从两个方面论证剥削概念存在的必要性：针对剥削概念受到的批评进行辩护；更新马克思主义对资本主义剥削的分析。

To highlight the specificity and richness of Marx’s theory of exploitation, we must first return to the concept of exploitation as elaborated by the Saint-Simonian school and its reformulation in the *Communist Manifesto*; second, analyze the different dimensions of the theory of exploitation developed in *Capital*; third, examine a series of possible objections that may be raised against the theory of exploitation; fourth, propose the relevance of the theory of exploitation for analyzing the current stage of neoliberalism.

为了突出马克思剥削理论的特殊性和丰富性，我们首先要回到圣西门学派阐释的剥削概念，以及《共产党宣言》对这些概念的重新表述；其次，分析在《资本论》中得到发展的剥削理论的不同向度；第三，研究针对剥削理论可能提出的一系列反对意见；第四，提出剥削理论与分析当前阶段新自由主义的相关性问题。

I. From Saint-Simonism to the *Communist Manifesto*

一、从圣西门主义到《共产党宣言》

It was not until the middle of the 19th century that the concept of exploitation acquired its current connotation. Before that, “exploitation” meant “to make something valuable” or “to derive benefit from something” in an agricultural, industrial, or commercial context. Today, this connotation can still be seen in the accounting concept of “operating surplus” (excédent d’exploitation). The Saint-Simonian school appears to have been the first to propose the idea of the exploitation of man by man, rather than the exploitation of things by man, resulting in the agent of exploitation no longer being an “exploiter” (exploitant) (referring to the exploitation of things) but an “exploiter” (exploiteur). At the same time, the concept of exploitation was given a pejorative connotation.

直到 19 世纪中叶，剥削的概念才获得了它当下的内涵。在此之前，“剥削”是指在农业、工业或商业的背景下“使某物具有价值”或“从某物中获得利益”。如今，在会计学“经营盈余”（excédent d’exploitation) 的概念中仍然能看到这样的内涵。圣西门学派似乎是第一个提出人剥削人而不是人剥削物这一思想的学派，从而导致进行剥削的行为者不再是开发者（exploitant）（指对物的开发）而是一个剥削者（exploiteur）。与此同时，剥削的概念被赋予了贬义的内涵。

Compared to Saint-Simon himself, who only used the simple expression “the exploitation of the globe” (l’exploitation du globe) in a general way, the Saint-Simonians truly developed the modern connotation of exploitation. In the two-volume work *The Exposition of the Doctrine of Saint-Simon* (L’exposition de la doctrine de Saint-Simon), the concept of “exploitation” is regarded as one of the basic concepts of Saint-Simonian philosophy, as important as concepts such as “association” and “antagonism.” In the aforementioned text, the authors present a law of the historical process, namely the law of the constant progress of association (progrès constant de l’association), whose concrete manifestation is the process from the family to the city, from the city to the nation, and finally from the nation to universal association. The book argues that past history has been characterized by antagonism, the most vivid forms of which are wars between families, cities, and nations, but at the same time they have also developed through association, and the current form is driven by competition. History, both past and present, is equally a history of exploitation: slavery is the original form of exploitation, and serfdom is one of its developmental forms. The Saint-Simonians also emphasized that exploitation continued after the end of slavery and serfdom, that property relations are the root cause of exploitation, and therefore the solution to exploitation lies in changing property relations (abolishing inheritance and having the state take possession of the means of production). In this sense, universal association presupposes the transcendence of the exploitation of man by man.

相比于只是泛泛地使用“地球的开发”（l’exploitation du globe)这一简单表达的圣西门来说，圣西门主义者真正地发展了剥削的现代内涵。在两卷本《圣西门学说释义》（L’exposition de la doctrine de Saint-Simon）中，“剥削”的概念被视为圣西门哲学的基本概念之一，它与“联合”和“对抗”这些概念同等重要。在上述文本中，作者呈现了关于历史进程的一种规律，即联合持续进展（progrès constant de l’association）的规律，其具体表现为从家庭到城市，从城市到国家，最后从国家到普遍联合的过程。书中观点认为，过往的历史以对抗为特征，其中最生动的形式是家庭、城市和国家之间的战争，但同时它们也在联合中取得发展，并且目前的形式是以竞争推动发展。历史无论在过去还是现在，同样都是剥削的历史，奴隶制是剥削的原始形态，农奴制是其发展形式之一。圣西门主义者还强调，剥削在奴隶制和农奴制结束后仍然存在，财产关系是剥削产生的根源，因此，解决剥削的办法在于改变财产关系（废除继承权，并由国家占有生产工具）。从这个意义上讲，普遍联合的前提是超越人对人的剥削。

These propositions of Saint-Simonism clearly found an echo in Marx, but the theoretical divergences between them are equally evident. For the Saint-Simonian critique of exploitation still included a critique of the idle who live off the industrious, and the dogma of the unity of the industrial world had not yet been completely abandoned. In this context, the industrious are the exploited. Although some discussions in *The Exposition of the Doctrine of Saint-Simon* had already emphasized that the early exploited industrious in turn exploited the workers, it was only after the formation and development of a republican form of Saint-Simonism gathered around the journal *Revue encyclopédique* in the 1830s that the contemporary form of the exploitation of man by man was interpreted as the exploitation of workers by the industrious.

圣西门主义的这些主张在马克思那里显然得到了回应，但这些主张与马克思的理论分歧同样明显。因为圣西门主义对剥削的批评仍然包含了对靠实业家养活的闲人的批评，且工业世界的统一性教条还没有完全被放弃。在这一语境中，实业家是被剥削的对象。尽管《圣西门学说释义》中的一些论述已经强调了早期被剥削的实业家反过来剥削工人，但是，直到1830年代，围绕《百科评论》（Revue encyclopédique）杂志聚集在一起的共和主义形式的圣西门主义得以形成与发展之后，才将当代形式的人剥削人解读为实业家对工人的剥削。

As early as the period of writing *The German Ideology* (1845–1846), Marx had already expanded the discussion of “exploitation.” In this text, he cited Saint-Simon’s statement on “the exploitation of man by man” in French. However, Marx’s interpretation of “exploitation” during this period was manifested in his critique of Max Stirner, arguing that utilitarianism is a realistic differentiation of exploitation, but without providing a strict conceptualization of “exploitation.” However, in the *Communist Manifesto*, the theoretical status of the concept of “exploitation” is no longer in doubt, and the use of this concept clearly bears the traces of Saint-Simonism, particularly evidenced by the association of the concepts of “antagonism” and “exploitation.” Marx and Engels argued that past history is a history of class antagonism, and also a history of the exploitation of one part of society by another. It is marked by the exploitation of man by man, with the mode of exploitation linked to property relations, and communism is defined as the common overcoming of class antagonism and the elimination of the exploitation of man by man. Marx’s concept of exploitation has a descriptive function (identifying the general characteristics of past history) and an explanatory function (explaining certain phenomena of inequality and conflict based on the economic base). This descriptive and explanatory nature is characteristic of many of Marx’s concepts (social relations of production, class and class struggle, ideology), which explain the past and present based on features that should disappear in communist society (conceived as a society without social relations, without classes and class struggle, without ideology). Marx’s theorization of these concepts often operates at the descriptive and explanatory levels, but still retains their utopian coloring. The same is true of the concept of exploitation in the *Communist Manifesto* and *Capital*, despite the differences between these two texts in many respects.

马克思早在写作《德意志意识形态》时期（1845—1846）就对“剥削”的论述进行了拓展。他在这个文本中以法语的形式引用了圣西门“人剥削人”的论述。然而，这一时期马克思对“剥削”的阐释体现在对麦克斯·施蒂纳（Max Stirner）的批判方面，提出功利主义是对剥削的现实分辩，但没有对“剥削”作出严格的概念化阐释。但是，在《共产党宣言》中，“剥削”概念的理论地位不再受到质疑，并且这一概念的使用明显地带着圣西门主义的痕迹，特别是“对抗”与“剥削”概念的关联尤其证明了这一点。马克思和恩格斯认为，过去的历史是阶级对抗的历史，也是社会中的一部分人被另外一部分人剥削的历史。它以人对人的剥削为标志，剥削方式与财产关系相关联，而共产主义的定义是共同克服阶级对抗，消除人对人的剥削。马克思的剥削概念具有描述性功能（确定了以往的一般历史特征）、解释性功能（基于经济基础解释了一些不平等与冲突现象）。这种描述性、解释性是马克思许多概念（社会生产关系、阶级和阶级斗争、意识形态）的特征，这些概念基于在共产主义社会（被设想为一个没有社会关系、没有阶级和阶级斗争、没有意识形态的社会）中应该消失的特征来解释过去和现在。马克思对这些概念的理论化往往是在描述性和解释性的层面上进行的，但仍然保留了它们的乌托邦色彩。《共产党宣言》和《资本论》中的剥削概念也是如此，尽管这两个文本在许多方面存在着差异。

There are the following threefold differences in the method of theoretical inquiry centered on the concept of exploitation in works such as the *Communist Manifesto* and *Capital*:

《共产党宣言》和《资本论》等著作以剥削概念为主题进行理论探讨的方法存在如下三重差异：

First, the theoretical status of this concept. Although the term “exploitation” had already acquired a theoretical and political status in *The Exposition of the Doctrine of Saint-Simon* and the *Communist Manifesto*, it was only in *Capital* that it developed into a genuine theory of exploitation.

第一，这一概念的理论地位。虽然剥削一词在《圣西门学说释义》和《共产党宣言》中就已经成为具有理论性和政治性地位的概念，但只有在《资本论》中才发展成真正意义上的剥削理论。

Second, the theoretical types of the concept of exploitation. In Marx’s view, the concept of exploitation is contained in two theories: one is a historical theory concerning the continuous development of modes of production; the other is a theory concerning the capitalist mode of production. For the first theory, the concept of exploitation belongs to the fundamental concepts of historical materialism, referring to the direct or indirect appropriation by one or several ruling strata of part of the labor (surplus labor) of the ruled strata, and the construction of types of modes of production according to various forms of exploitation (slavery, serfdom, wage labor, etc.). The *Communist Manifesto* discusses the problem of exploitation precisely from the perspective of the first theory. In the second theory, the theory of capitalist exploitation is one of the cornerstones of the theory of capitalism developed in *Capital*. As this article will discuss in the next section, it is not simply an application of the concepts of historical materialism.

第二，剥削概念的理论化类型。在马克思看来，剥削的概念包含在两种理论中：一种是关于生产方式连续性发展的历史理论；另一种是关于资本主义生产方式的理论。对于第一种理论，剥削概念属于唯物史观的基本概念，指的是一个或一些统治阶层直接或间接地占有被统治阶层的部分劳动（剩余劳动），并根据各种剥削类型（奴隶制、农奴制、雇佣劳动等）构建生产方式类型。《共产党宣言》正是从第一种理论视角出发讨论了剥削问题。在第二种理论中，资本主义剥削理论是在《资本论》中发展起来的资本主义理论的基石之一。正如本文在下一节中论述的那样，它并不是简单地应用历史唯物主义概念。

Third, the analysis of the specific characteristics of capitalist exploitation. Marx argues in *Capital* that, due to the general mechanism of commodity fetishism (Chapter 1, Section 4) and the illusion of the “form of wages” (Chapter 17), the characteristics of capitalist exploitation are especially evident in its concealment. However, in the *Communist Manifesto*, Marx holds that, compared with feudal forms of exploitation, which remain in a concealed form, the capitalist form of exploitation is open; “it has replaced the exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, with open, unashamed, direct, and naked exploitation.”

第三，对资本主义剥削的具体特征的分析。马克思在《资本论》中认为，由于商品拜物教的一般机制（第一章第四节）和对“工资形式”的幻象（第十七章），资本主义剥削的特点尤其体现在它的隐蔽性上。然而，在《共产党宣言》中，马克思认为，与封建剥削形式仍然处于隐蔽的形式相比，资本主义的剥削形式是公开的，“它用公开的、无耻的、直接的、露骨的剥削代替了由宗教幻想和政治幻想掩盖着的剥削”。

If the problem of exploitation is understood as a problem requiring a justification of social legitimacy, the two theoretical perspectives above are not necessarily contradictory. This legitimacy comes either from ideological legitimation or from the obscuring and mystifying functions of fetishism and the form of wages. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that, even if Marx did not revise his concept of exploitation between 1848 (the publication of the *Communist Manifesto*) and 1867 (the publication of *Capital*), he did refine this concept to a considerable extent.

如果将剥削问题理解为一个需要提供社会正当性辩护的问题，上述两种理论视角就不一定是矛盾的。这种正当性要么来自意识形态合法化，要么来自拜物教和工资形式的遮蔽与神秘化功能。然而，不可否认的是，即使马克思在 1848 年（《共产党宣言》发表）到 1867 年（《资本论》发表）期间没有对他的剥削概念进行修正，他还是在很大程度上对这一概念进行了细化。

II. The Concept of Exploitation and Its Mechanism in *Capital*

二、《资本论》中的剥削概念及其机制

In the work *Capital*, the elucidation of the concept of exploitation is linked to three different objectives: first, to demonstrate that the capitalist mode of production is a new form of exploitation, not the disappearance of exploitation as it appears on the surface; second, to explain that exploitation is the key to capitalist production; third, to describe the multiple effects of exploitation on the working class.

在《资本论》这部著作中，剥削概念的阐释与三个不同的目标相关联：第一，论证资本主义的生产方式是一种新的剥削形式，而非其表象所呈现的剥削的消失；第二，说明剥削是资本主义生产的关键所在；第三，描述剥削对工人阶级的多重影响。

Under the feudal mode of production, surplus labor takes a specific form, such as corvée labor. However, under the capitalist mode of production, surplus labor is imperceptible from exploitation, because the appearance of wages is that of paying for the value of all the labor expended by the worker, thereby creating the illusion that exploitation no longer exists. To distinguish “necessary labor” from “surplus labor” and to prove that exploitation has not disappeared, Marx must base his argument on his theory of value. But surplus labor does not exist independently; therefore, it must be demonstrated that paying wages to the worker only pays for the value of labor-power, not for the total value created by labor-power within the workplace. To this end, it must also be demonstrated that the value created by labor-power is greater than the value paid by wages. In this sense, Marx seeks to provide a scientific demonstration of exploitation by constructing two distinct sets of concepts: the first set is “necessary labor” and “price of labor-power” (paid by wages); the second set is “surplus labor” and “surplus value” (the source of profit). Within this theoretical framework, exploitation and surplus value are essentially equivalent. For example, the title of Chapter 7 of Volume 1 of *Capital* is “The Rate of Surplus Value,” and the first section of this chapter is named “The Degree of Exploitation of Labor-Power”; thus, these two expressions are clearly synonyms.

在封建主义生产方式下，剩余劳动呈现为特有的形式，例如徭役。然而，在资本主义生产方式下，从剥削中无法察觉剩余劳动，因为工资的表象是对工人所付出的所有劳动价值的支付，从而给人造成一种不再存在剥削的错觉。为了区分“必要劳动”与“剩余劳动”，证明剥削并没有消失，马克思必须在他的价值理论的基础上进行论证。但剩余劳动并不是独立存在的，因此，必须证明向劳动者支付工资只是支付了劳动力的价值，而不是工作场所内劳动力创造的全部价值。为此，还必须证明劳动力创造的价值大于工资所支付的价值。从这个意义上来说，马克思探求通过构建两组不同的概念对剥削进行科学论证：第一组是“必要劳动”与“劳动力价格”（由工资支付）；第二组是“剩余劳动”与“剩余价值”（利润的来源）。在这个理论框架内，剥削与剩余价值基本上是等同的。例如，《资本论》第1卷第七章的标题是“剩余价值率”，这一章的第一节被命名为“劳动力的剥削程度”，由此可见，这两种表述显然是同义词。

However, Marx does not stop at emphasizing that exploitation has not disappeared under the capitalist mode of production; precisely, his goal is to clarify that exploitation constitutes the key characteristic of the capitalist mode of production—production aimed at surplus value. It is precisely because capitalist production no longer aims at producing use values, or useful goods and services, but at producing exchange value, more precisely surplus value, that it constitutes an endless process, leading to an unprecedented degree of exploitation of labor-power, a degree not reached even in the harshest forms of slavery. This is precisely what Marx attempts to demonstrate, especially in Chapter 8 of Volume 1 of *Capital*. In this chapter, Marx describes the development of excessive forms of exploitation, in which workers do not even have enough time to “reproduce [their] labor-power” and therefore face the possibility of “being worked to death.” The theory of exploitation is developed at different levels. In addition to the economic theoretical perspective that seeks to determine the standard of surplus labor and the source of profit, and the historical comparative perspective on the forms and degrees of exploitation (embodied in Chapter 8, Section 2 of Volume 1 of *Capital*, “The Greed for Surplus Labor. Manufacturer and Boyar”), we argue that, in *Capital*, the theory of exploitation is also understood as a theory of social processes. This theory is applied to different analytical levels, for example, the macro level of social relations of production, the meso level of power relations specific to institutions such as the market, manufacture, and large-scale industry, and the micro level of exploitation. The capitalist social relations of production are defined by the private ownership of the means of production; it is precisely because of the existence of the private property form of the means of production that the proletariat is dispossessed of all private ownership of the means of production, forcing proletarians to sell their labor-power to capitalists in exchange for wages that allow them to survive. Therefore, capitalist exploitation is based on a social relation that manifests as a structural economic dependence, a dependence that tends to reproduce itself, because the wages obtained by the proletarian are never sufficient to purchase the means of production they need, and they cannot escape the predicament of making a living, only continuously selling their labor-power in exchange for wages.

但是，马克思并未止步于强调剥削在资本主义生产方式中没有消失，准确地说，他的目标是要阐明剥削构成了资本主义生产方式的关键特征——以剩余价值生产为目的。正是由于资本主义的生产不再以生产使用价值、或有用的商品和服务为目标，而是以生产交换价值，更准确地说是以剩余价值为目标，从而构成了一个没有穷尽的过程，导致对劳动力的剥削达到了前所未有的程度，即便在最严酷的奴隶制形式中都没有达到过这样的程度。这正是马克思试图去论证的内容，尤其是《资本论》第1卷第八章中的观点。在这一章里，马克思描述了过度剥削形式的发展，在这种形式中，工人甚至没有足够的时间来“再生产[他们的]劳动力”，因此面临“活活累死”的可能性。剥削理论在不同层面上都得到了发展。除了试图确定剩余劳动标准和利润来源的经济理论视角，以及对剥削的形式与程度的历史比较视角之外（体现在《资本论》第1卷第八章第二节《对剩余劳动的贪欲。工厂主和领主》中），我们认为，在《资本论》中，剥削理论还被理解为是一个关于社会进程的理论。这一理论被应用于不同的分析层面，例如，社会生产关系的宏观层面，市场、工场手工业、大工业等机构所特有的权力关系的中观层面，以及剥削的微观层面。资本主义的社会生产关系由生产资料的私人所有制定义，正是由于存在生产资料的私有制形式，无产阶级被剥夺了对一切生产资料的私人所有，迫使无产者将自己的劳动力出卖给资本家，以换取能够生存下去的工资。因此，资本主义剥削建立在这样一种社会关系基础之上，这种社会关系表现为一种结构性经济依赖（dépendance économique structurelle），这种依赖关系往往会自我再生产，因为无产者所获得的工资永远不足以购买其所需的生产资料，并且无法摆脱生计困境，只能不断出卖自己的劳动力以换取工资。

However, when analyzing the relations of exploitation, Marx not only regards them as social relations of production but also incorporates them into the theoretical perspective of power relations, which enable the realization of exploitative relations in two different social spheres: circulation (or the market) and production (manufacture and large-scale industry). In the process of circulation, the mechanism of exploitation is based on dependence on money, in which the proletarian is not only dispossessed of the means of production but also of direct access to the means of payment for purchasing means of subsistence or means of production. Therefore, the exploitative relation manifests as a power relation, appearing at the level of circulation as an asymmetric interaction between the “money owner” and the “owner of labor-power.” In this process, the latter knows that he is forced into a monetary exchange that comes at his own expense. In a famous passage in Chapter 4 of Volume 1 of *Capital*, Marx describes a similar scenario, where a money owner “struts ahead,” while the owner of labor-power “follows behind … like someone who has brought his own hide to market and has nothing to expect but—a tanning.” Other power mechanisms operate in the sphere of production. In the chapters specifically discussing the working day, manufacture, large-scale industry, and wages, Marx points out that control over the output of labor-power depends on disciplinary mechanisms and various technical and organizational factors. First, Marx reveals the implementation of an internal hierarchy based on “factory discipline,” whose function is supervision and punishment. Second, he argues that the rise of machinery establishes new power relations, forcing workers to submit to the machine while being deskilled, thereby weakening their capacity to negotiate and resist. Finally, he also shows that wage systems such as piecework establish forms of self-control within a framework that appears as self-exploitation.

但是，马克思在分析剥削关系时，不仅认为它是一种社会生产关系，还将其纳入了权力关系（rapports de pouvoir）的理论视野，这种权力关系使剥削关系在流通（或市场）和生产（工场手工业和大工业）两个不同的社会领域中得以实现。在流通过程中，剥削机制基于对货币的依赖，无产者在其中不仅被剥夺了生产资料，也被剥夺了直接获取购买生活资料或生产资料的支付手段的权利。因此，剥削关系表现为一种权力关系，在流通层面表现为“货币所有者”与“劳动力所有者”之间的不对称互动。在这个过程中，后者知道他被迫卷入了以其自身为代价的货币交换活动。在《资本论》第1卷第四章的一段著名论述中，马克思描述了类似的情景，一个货币占有者“昂首前行”，而劳动力占有者“尾随于后……像在市场上出卖了自己的皮一样，只有一个前途——让人家来鞣”。其他权力机制则在生产领域运行。在专门讨论工作日、工场手工业、大工业和工资的章节中，马克思指出，对劳动力产出的控制取决于纪律机制以及各种技术因素与组织因素。首先，马克思揭示了以“工厂纪律”为基础的内部等级制度的实施，其功能是监督与惩罚。其次，他认为机器的兴盛建立了新的权力关系，迫使工人在被去技能化的同时服从于机器，从而削弱了他们谈判与抵抗的能力。最后，他还表明，诸如计件工资这样的薪酬制度，在呈现为自我剥削的框架内建立起自我控制的形式。

What is striking is that this analysis of power relations in manufacture and large-scale industry always proceeds on two fronts simultaneously. On the one hand, there is the perspective that describes the transformation of the industrial system (the shift from manufacture to large-scale industry); on the other hand, there is the perspective based on the experience of exploitation. Marx points out that the experience of exploitation is, for the worker, an experience of domination, which they attempt to resist in various ways, and that these resistances, whether covert or overt, lead to the continuous renewal of the organisational patterns of labour technique and political division of labour within the workplace. In this concept, this is concretely manifested in everything from pathogenic working conditions to death caused by excessive workloads, including workplace accidents and multiple forms of physical and psychological harm related to housing and dietary conditions resulting from low wages.

令人关注的是，这种对工场手工业和大工业权力关系的分析总是同时在两方面展开。一方面，是描述工业体制改变（从工场手工业向大工业的转变）的视角；另一方面，是基于剥削经验的视角。马克思指出，剥削经验对工人来说是支配经验，他们试图以各种方式来抵抗这种支配，而这些抵抗，无论是隐蔽的还是公开的，都会导致工作场所内劳动技术与政治分工的组织模式的持续革新。这一概念中，具体表现为从致病的工作条件到过度的工作量造成的死亡，其中包括工伤事故以及低工资造成的与住房和饮食条件相关的多种形式的身体和心理损害。

In summary, we can say that the theory of exploitation expounded in *Capital* combines an economic theory concerning the source of profit (the connection between surplus labour, surplus value, and profit), a sociological theory that reproduces the structural inequality at the root of class differences (at the level of the possession of the means of production), and a socio-economic theory that integrates the factor of economic dependence with the factor of labour domination directed at the dominated class. Therefore, Marx’s theory of exploitation is very rich, and each of its elements can be independently advanced and developed: in the form of a theory of structural social relations; in the form of the question “who works for whom?”; in the form of the concept of the impersonal domination of the logic of value; in the form of a theory of power relations within the market or the enterprise; and in the form of the factory as the site of concrete antagonism between capital and labour.

综上所述，我们可以说，《资本论》中阐述的剥削理论结合了有关利润来源（剩余劳动、剩余价值与利润之间的关联）的经济理论，再现了阶级差异根源的结构性不平等（在生产资料占有层面)再生产的社会学理论，以及整合了经济依赖因素与针对被统治阶级的劳动支配因素的社会经济学理论。因此，马克思的剥削理论是非常丰富的，对它的每一个要素都可以进行独立地推进和发展：以结构性社会关系理论的形式；以“谁为谁工作？”的问题形式；以价值逻辑的非人格化支配的概念形式；以市场或企业内权力关系的理论形式，以及以工厂作为劳资具体对抗的场所的理论形式。

III. Defence Against Criticisms

三、针对质疑进行的辩护

Although Marx’s theory of exploitation is regarded as the classic theory of exploitation, it also faces various criticisms that cannot be ignored. The most typical criticism proceeds from an economic perspective, arguing that Marx’s argument, based on the labour theory of value, is insufficient. First, it must be pointed out that if this concerns exploitation in general (*l’exploitation en général*), then this objection is a misunderstanding of the following point: among all the forms of exploitation existing in class societies, Marx only analysed capitalist exploitation on the basis of the theory of value. However, if this concerns the question of capitalist exploitation, this objection deserves serious consideration. We have already indicated that the role of the theory of value is to prove the existence of exploitation, by providing a theoretical standard that distinguishes “necessary labour” from “surplus labour”, the latter often being invisible in the capitalist mode of production. From this perspective, if the theory of value is overturned, the argument for exploitation is also overturned. Therefore, some economists, based on this view, either reject the use of the concept of exploitation altogether, or advocate re-formulating exploitation independently of any theory of value and adopting another criterion for identifying exploitation: the criterion of justice. Marx refused to equate exploitation with injustice, because it occurs under conditions of free exchange (between the owner of the means of production and the owner of labour-power) and equal exchange (wages paid for the value of labour-power, the latter also seen as the necessary labour for the reproduction of labour-power), and thus conforms to the requirements of justice. Only forms of excessive exploitation—either paying workers a wage below the value of their labour-power, or endangering the reproduction of labour-power—are unjust. Since this is a critique of capitalist exploitation in general, and not merely of excessive exploitation, the critique of capitalism should not be based on the standard of justice but on the need for emancipation. That is, exploitation should not be understood as injustice, but as a form of domination. However, if the theory of value is abandoned, it can no longer be assumed that wages pay the value of labour-power and that exploitation conforms to the requirements of justice. This leads to exploitation being redefined as a way of benefiting from the actions of others at their expense, thereby modifying Marx’s concept of exploitation in two respects: on the one hand, exploitation is interpreted from the perspective of injustice, rather than being defined from the perspective of economic dependence and domination; on the other hand, exploitation is linked to various actions that may unjustly obtain benefits, and is not only manifested at the level of labour.

虽然马克思的剥削理论被称作经典的剥削理论，但它也面临着各种不可忽视的批评。最典型的批评意见是从经济学的视角出发，认为马克思以劳动价值理论为基础的论证是不充分的论证。首先需要指出的是，如果这是关涉一般剥削（l’exploitation en général)的问题，那么这种反对意见是对如下观点的一种误解：在阶级社会存在的所有剥削形式中，马克思只是根据价值理论分析过资本主义剥削问题。不过，如果这是讨论资本主义剥削的问题，这种反对意见就值得认真对待了。我们已经指出，价值理论的作用在于证明了剥削的存在，它通过提供一种理论标准区分了“必要劳动”与“剩余劳动”，而后者在资本主义的生产方式中往往是不可见的。由此看来，如果价值理论被推翻，对剥削的论证也会被推翻。因此，一些经济学家经常依据这一观点，要么拒绝使用剥削的概念，要么主张独立于所有的价值理论而重新对剥削进行表述，并采取另一种识别剥削的标准：正义标准。马克思拒绝将剥削等同于不公正，因为它是在自由交换（生产资料所有者与劳动力所有者之间）与平等交换（以工资支付劳动力的价值，后者也被看作用于劳动力再生产的必要劳动）的情况下进行的，符合正义的要求。只有过度剥削的形式——要么以低于其价值的价格支付劳动者的工资，要么危及劳动力的再生产——才是不正义的。既然这是批判资本主义一般剥削，而不仅仅是过度剥削的问题，对资本主义的批评就不应该基于正义的标准而不是解放的需求。也就是说，剥削不应该被理解为不公正，而应该被理解为一种支配形式。然而，如果放弃了价值理论，就不能再假定工资支付了劳动力的价值以及剥削符合正义的要求。这会导致剥削被重新定义为以牺牲他人利益为代价，从他人的行为中获取利益的方式，从而在两方面修改了马克思的剥削概念：一方面，从不正义的角度阐释剥削，而不是从经济依赖与支配的角度去定义剥削；另一方面，剥削与各种有可能不公正地获取利益的行为相关联，而不仅仅体现在劳动层面。

Does the above concept of exploitation face fewer problems than Marx’s concept of exploitation? This is highly questionable. First, Marx’s theory can better explain how workers at the bottom of the hierarchy suffer from work exploitation. It also explains the workers’ experience of being forced into economic dependence (the pressure of money forcing workers to sell their labour-power daily), the experience of being dominated in the workplace, and the experience of being deprived of the product of their labour (or the appropriation of surplus labour). However, understanding exploitation based on the problem of unjustly appropriating others’ surplus labour only focuses on the last of these three problems, ignoring the relationship between exploitation and economic dependence and domination. Although, according to Marx’s concept of exploitation, it is difficult to analyse the experience of exploitation as an experience of injustice, compared with the difficulties faced by the analytical perspective that sees exploitation merely as a problem of injustice, Marx’s analysis of exploitation is more comprehensive, because it restores the multiple dimensions of the experience of exploitation in the field of labour.

难道上述剥削概念比马克思的剥削概念面临的问题少吗？这很值得怀疑。首先，马克思的理论能够更好地解释底层工人是如何遭受工作剥削的。它也同样解释了工人被迫进行经济依赖的经历（货币压力强迫工人每天出卖自己的劳动力），在工作场所被支配的经历，以及被剥夺劳动产品（或占有剩余劳动）的经历。然而，基于不公正地占有他人剩余劳动的问题来理解剥削，只关注到了上述三个问题中的最后一个问题，而忽略了剥削与经济依赖和支配之间的关系问题。尽管根据马克思的剥削概念，我们很难将剥削的经验看作不正义的经验进行分析，但是，相比于将剥削仅仅看作不正义问题的分析视角所面临的困境，马克思对剥削的分析更加全面，因为它恢复了劳动领域的剥削经验的多重维度。

Second, from an economic perspective, the theory of value also has its advantages: it makes people aware that, in the process of creating value, control over the quantity and quality of labour expended is a decisive issue. Marx’s theory of value particularly emphasises that, while raw materials and machinery continuously transfer their own value to the commodities produced (as “constant capital”), if value is transformed through labour, then labour can produce more or less value within a given period of time (as “variable capital”), and can hinder the transfer process of the value of raw materials and machinery. This is why labour must be subjected to specific mechanisms of power, in order to facilitate the transfer of the value of constant capital and, as variable capital, to produce as much value as possible. Even if we abandon the theory of value, the distinction between constant capital and variable capital remains meaningful, and the existence of the concept of exploitation also confirms an important economic fact: the contribution of raw materials and machinery to profit is different from that of labour, and labour-power must be directed, disciplined, and supervised to ensure the expected level of profit. Therefore, there is a strong argument against understanding exploitation, within the framework of the problem of justice alone, as a general concept of using others’ actions as a means: not only is the act of using others’ labour to obtain benefits special, but this special character can only be analysed by reference to the form of domination over labour. Thus, from a strictly economic perspective, it seems reasonable to continue thinking about exploitation in terms of the specificity of labour exploitation and from the perspective of forms of domination, as Marx did.

其次，从经济学角度来看，价值理论也有其优势：它使人们意识到，在创造价值的过程中，对所耗费劳动的数量和质量的控制是一个决定性问题。马克思的价值理论特别强调，在原材料和机器不断将自身价值转移到所生产的商品时（作为“不变资本”），如果价值是通过劳动转换的，那么劳动在一定时间内就可以生产或多或少的价值（作为“可变资本”），并阻碍原材料和机器的价值的转移进程。这就是为什么劳动必须服从于特定的权力机制，以便促进不变资本的价值转移，并作为可变资本生产出尽可能多的价值。即使我们放弃了价值理论，区分不变资本与可变资本仍然是有意义的，剥削概念的存在也确认了一个重要的经济事实：原材料和机器对利润的贡献与劳动不同，必须对劳动力进行指挥、规训和监督，以确保预期的利润水平。因此，存在着一个强有力的论据，反对仅仅在正义问题的框架内将剥削理解为利用他人行为的一种手段的一般性概念：不仅利用他人劳动以获取利益的行为具有特殊性，而且这种特殊性只有参照对劳动的支配形式才能进行分析。因此，从严格的经济学角度来看，继续按照马克思在劳动剥削的特殊性以及从支配形式的角度来思考剥削问题似乎是合理的。

Finally, we can also defend Marx’s concept of capitalist exploitation by reversing the burden of proof: abandoning the theory of value inevitably loses the possibility of distinguishing between necessary labour and surplus labour, and thus loses the basis for arguing that exploitation exists. But can convincing arguments really be put forward to conclude that exploitation no longer exists under capitalism? Do we really believe that the appropriation of surplus labour, which has always existed in class societies, suddenly disappears with the emergence of capitalism? Since capitalism is characterised by persistent forms of structural class inequality, by driving workers’ labour in more creative ways (for example, through continuously updated tracking statistics on the unemployed), and by supervising labour activities (especially through electronic devices and evaluation mechanisms), capitalist exploitation necessarily exists, and the appropriation of surplus labour in bourgeois society will not disappear.

最后，我们还可以通过举证责任倒置的方式来捍卫马克思的资本主义剥削概念：放弃价值理论必然会丧失区分必要劳动与剩余劳动的标准的可能性，从而也就放弃了存在剥削的论证基础，但是否真的能够提出令人信服的论据，得出资本主义不再有剥削的结论呢？我们是否真的相信，在阶级社会中一直存在的对剩余劳动的占有现象，会随着资本主义的出现突然消失呢？由于资本主义的特征表现为持续存在的结构性阶级不平等形式，以更具创造性的方式推动工人劳动（比如持续更新对失业者的追踪统计），以及监督劳动活动（特别是通过电子设备与评估机制），资本主义剥削必然存在，资产阶级社会中对剩余劳动的占有现象也不会消失。

Another objection to Marx’s concept of capitalist exploitation holds that this concept is built upon the concept of the rule of the proletariat, which overemphasizes economic determinism. This view argues that Marx places too much weight on macro forms of power (class power and state power) while underestimating the micro powers that weave relations of domination in social life. For this objection, which employs Foucault’s propositions, the simplest response is to recall Foucault’s own research method—he took Marx’s analysis of capitalist exploitation as the methodological model for his own analysis of power. Foucault emphasizes that Marx examines the exploitation suffered by workers from the dual perspective of structural social relations and concrete power mechanisms; this analysis of power mechanisms proceeds by studying power techniques and the resistance they provoke and shape. It should be added that the specificity of Marx’s concept of exploitation lies not in reducing relations of domination to the ruling class and state power, but in explaining how multiple factors of domination acquire their unity and effectiveness through their interweaving with relations of economic dependence. In short, just as with the critique of the theory of value, the critique from the perspective of macro power does not provide a clearer argument for refuting Marx’s concept of exploitation.

另一种反对马克思资本主义剥削概念的观点认为，这一概念是建立在无产阶级统治的概念之上的，而无产阶级统治概念过于强调经济决定论。这种观点认为，马克思过于看重宏观权力的形式（阶级权力和国家权力），而低估了在社会生活中编织统治关系的微观权力。对于这种使用福柯主张的反对观点来说，最简单的回应方式是回顾福柯的研究方法——他把马克思对资本主义剥削的分析作为自己分析权力的方法论模型。福柯强调，马克思是从结构性社会关系和具体权力机制的双重视角出发探讨工人所遭受的剥削，这种对权力机制的分析是通过研究权力技术与其引起并塑造的反抗来进行的。需要补充说明的是，马克思的剥削概念的特殊性不是将统治关系简化为统治阶级与国家权力，而是解释了多元统治因素如何从与经济依赖关系的交织中获得其统一性与有效性。总之，就像对价值理论的批判一样，对宏观权力视角的批判并不能为反驳马克思的剥削概念提供更加明确的论证。

IV. Neoliberal Exploitation as a Return to the Production of Absolute Surplus Value

四、新自由主义剥削是对绝对剩余价值生产的回归

The final objection is rooted in the view that the theoretical framework established in *Capital* can no longer explain the forms of labor exploitation that predominate in the current neoliberal stage. To test whether this objection is reasonable, one must first identify which form of exploitation it refers to, and then verify whether it is indeed impossible to analyze this form of exploitation from Marx’s perspective. Completing this task would exceed the scope of a single article; it is not a problem that this paper can resolve. Therefore, we need only emphasize that, at least in certain respects, *Capital* does provide a tool of significant heuristic value for analyzing the contemporary world.

最后一种反对意见的根源基于这样一种观点：《资本论》中建立的理论框架不再能解释在新自由主义的现阶段占主导地位的劳动剥削形式。为了检验这类反对意见是否具有合理性，首先需要识别其属于哪种剥削形式，继而验证从马克思的角度分析这类剥削形式是否的确是不可能的。完成这项工作必然会超出一篇文章的篇幅，这不是本文能够解决的问题。因此，我们只需强调，至少在某些方面，《资本论》确实是为分析当代世界提供了具有重大启发意义的工具。

First, it should be recalled that Marx stated that the capitalism he studied was not a fixed and immutable structure, but an “organic whole that is capable of change and is constantly in the process of change.” Marx was open to the new changes that capitalism has undergone in the century and a half since the publication of Volume 1 of *Capital*; therefore, if the theory of this work cannot explain such changes, then innovating upon it is entirely reasonable. Moreover, Marx analyzed not one but two types of capitalist exploitation, which he distinguished through the concepts of “absolute surplus value” (Chapter 3) and “relative surplus value” (Chapter 4). In this regard, Marx explained a transformation of capitalism and described its causes and developmental process, namely the shift from the production of absolute surplus value to the production of relative surplus value. However, if Marx’s theory of capitalist exploitation still has some practical relevance today, it is mainly because the most salient feature of the current stage of capitalism (which may be called the neoliberal stage) is that it exhibits a return to the production of absolute surplus value, rather than the emergence of pure capitalism (which would imply that capitalism has a pure essence that initially manifested historically in an impure form), nor the arrival of fully mature capitalism (which would mean that the current stage of capitalism is a deepening of the logic of relative surplus value), nor a return to the prehistory of capitalism (predatory accumulation).

首先需要回顾的是，马克思曾经声明，他所研究的资本主义不是作为固定不变的结构，而是一个“能够变化并且经常处于变化过程中的有机体”。马克思对《资本论》第1卷出版后一个半世纪以来资本主义的新变化持开放的态度，因此，如果这部著作的理论无法解释这种变化，那么对其进行创新就是完全合理的。此外，马克思分析的不是一种而是两种资本主义剥削类型，他通过“绝对剩余价值”（第三章）与“相对剩余价值”（第四章）的概念区分了这两种类型的剥削。对此，马克思解释了资本主义的一种变化，并描述了其中的原因和发展过程，即从绝对剩余价值生产到相对剩余价值生产的转变。然而，如果说马克思的资本主义剥削理论在当下仍然有一定的现实意义，那么主要是因为资本主义现阶段（可称之为新自由主义阶段）最显著的特征表现为它出现了对绝对剩余价值生产的回归，而不是出现了纯粹的资本主义（这意味着资本主义拥有一种纯粹的本质，最初以不纯粹的方式历史地显现出来），也不是达到完全成熟的资本主义（这意味着资本主义的现阶段是相对剩余价值逻辑的深化），或者回到资本主义史前时代（掠夺性积累）。

The concept of the production of absolute surplus value serves to identify the central mechanism for producing surplus labor and surplus value in the first stage of capitalism. Capitalism seeks to increase profit by making workers work as many hours per day as possible (even if “overwork” leads to death) and by having children work as early as possible (leading to an overall decline in the physical quality of the adult laboring population), while simultaneously attempting to lower wages by providing adulterated commodities (such as bread made from flour mixed with saltpeter) or low-quality commodities (such as unsanitary housing conditions) that serve as the commodities necessary for the reproduction of labor power. This situation of wage reduction can be explained either as wages falling below the value of labor power itself, or as a lowering of the social consumption standard. According to Marx, the social consumption standard is also part of the definition of the value of labor power. These two explanations are not mutually exclusive, because a sustained fall in wages below the value of labor power leads to a decline in the consumption standard, which in turn causes the value of labor power to fall. It should be noted that the two important components of the production of absolute surplus value—the increase in working hours and the lowering of the social consumption standard—can both be described independently of the theory of value. They can be narrated in the language of exploitation, as two tendencies of over-exploitation: on the one hand, reducing wages as much as possible; on the other hand, increasing working hours as much as possible.

绝对剩余价值生产概念的作用是确定资本主义第一阶段生产剩余劳动以及剩余价值的中心机制。资本主义试图通过让工人每天尽可能多地工作（即使“过度劳动”会导致死亡），并尽可能早地让儿童工作（导致成年后的劳动人口的身体素质整体下降）来增加利润，同时试图通过掺假的商品（如用掺入硝石粉的面粉制作面包）或低质量的商品（如不卫生的住房条件）充当劳动力再生产所必需的商品，从而达到降低工资的目的。这种降低工资的情况既可以解释为工资低于劳动力价值本身，也可以解释为降低社会消费标准。根据马克思的观点，社会消费标准也属于劳动力价值定义的一部分。这两种解释并不是相互排斥的，因为工资持续下降至劳动力价值以下会导致消费标准下降，从而导致劳动力价值下降。应该指出，绝对剩余价值生产的两个重要组成部分，即工作时间的增加和社会消费标准的降低，都可以独立于价值理论来描述。它们可以用剥削的语言来叙述，即过度剥削的两种倾向，一方面是尽可能地降低工资，另一方面是尽可能地增加工作时间。

The concept of the production of relative surplus value refers to a form of exploitation that replaces the production of absolute surplus value after the pursuit of extra profit is constrained by the physiological limits of the worker’s working day, and after early workers’ struggles successfully achieve legislative guarantees concerning the working day and the minimum age for employing children. In this situation, technological progress prevents a reduction in the amount of surplus labor appropriated in the form of surplus value. From the perspective of the theory of value, technological progress allows the commodities necessary for the reproduction of labor power to be produced in a shorter time (thereby reducing the value of labor power), thereby increasing the proportion of the working day devoted to the production of surplus value. This inference can be explained independently of the theory of value: high profit rates are brought about by increases in productivity that are appropriated by the owners of capital and not shared with workers. This inference can also be expressed in non-economic terms. With the production of relative surplus value, capitalism manages to curb its inherent tendency toward over-exploitation; capitalists either confine exploitation within normal limits or, through measures such as labor laws, follow the implicit requirements of justice in employment labor contracts. The first major transformation of the capitalist mode of production—the shift from manufacture to large-scale industry—triggered multiple trends with long-term effects, which exerted enormous influence during the Fordist period: increasing the share of investment directed toward research and development; shortening the weekly working hours; increasing paid vacation time; raising the statutory working age (for children and adolescents); lowering the statutory retirement age; and strengthening labor laws, among other trends. During the Fordist period, technological progress shared the gains in productivity in the form of direct or indirect wage increases (publicly funded healthcare systems, unemployment and retirement benefits), promoting a marked rise in the social consumption standard.

相对剩余价值生产的概念是指这样一种剥削形式：在对额外利润的追求受到工作日中的工人生理极限的限制后，以及早期工人斗争成功实现了有关工作日及雇佣儿童最低年龄的立法保障之后，剥削的形式由相对剩余价值生产取代了绝对剩余价值生产。在这种情况下，技术进步阻止了以剩余价值为占有形式的剩余劳动量的减少。从价值理论的视角来看，技术的进步可以在更短的时间内生产出劳动力再生产所必须的商品（从而降低劳动力的价值），用心提高工作日中剩余价值生产所占的比例。这一推论可以独立于价值理论来阐释，即高利润率是由资本所有者占有且不与工人分享的生产率的提高带来的。这一推论也可以由非经济术语来表述。随着相对剩余价值的生产，资本主义设法遏制了其固有的过度剥削的倾向，资本家要么把剥削限制在正常范围内，要么通过劳动法等措施遵循雇佣劳动合同中隐含的正义要求。随着资本主义生产方式的第一次重大转变，即工场手工业到大工业的转变，引发了多种具有长期影响的趋势，并在福特主义时期产生了巨大的影响：增加面向研发的投资份额；缩短每周工作时间；增加带薪休假时间；提高法定工作年龄（对儿童和青少年而言）；降低法定退休年龄以及加强劳动法等趋势。在福特主义时期，技术进步以直接或间接提高工资的形式（公共援助医疗卫生系统、失业和退休福利）分享了生产率的提高，促进了社会消费标准的明显提高。

Surprisingly, the neoliberal period is characterized by a reversal of all the aforementioned trends, at least in the countries at the center of the world economy. In recent decades, a notable feature is the increase in the share of profits redistributed at the expense of investment. Strong profit growth, achieved at the expense of wages, has been accompanied by a slowdown in investment growth, even though productivity gains precisely depend on investment. In pursuit of short-term profits, the increase in the profit rate is no longer primarily achieved through productivity gains driven by technological innovation, but rather, on the one hand, by extending working hours (weekly working hours and working years) and intensifying labor, and on the other hand, by reducing wage costs, ultimately taking various forms of challenging or abusing the law (tax law or labor law).

令人惊讶的是，新自由主义时期的特点体现为上述所有趋向都发生了逆转，至少在世界经济中心的国家是这样。近几十年来，一个显著特征是利润再分配份额的增加损害了投资。在牺牲工资的代价下，利润的强劲增长伴随着投资增长放缓，尽管生产率的提高恰恰是依赖投资。为了追求短期利润，利润水平的提高不再主要依赖技术创新带来的生产率的提高来实现，而是一方面依靠延长劳动时间（每周的工作时长与工作年限）和加强劳动强度，另一方面通过降低工资成本，最终采取各种形式挑战或滥用法律（税法或劳动法）。

The long-term trend toward reducing weekly working hours is now reversing—one of the most salient features of the current stage—while at the same time the retirement age is beginning to be postponed. Moreover, various forms of outsourcing enable capitalist enterprises at the center of the world economy to employ children and adolescents from other countries at ages prohibited in their home countries. In terms of labor time—at the level of the working day (owing to the blurring of its boundaries and the colonization of private life by work), as well as at the level of weekly working hours and working years—we find the purest form of the logic of absolute surplus-value production: making people work as much as possible to produce more surplus value. The return of a typical phenomenon illustrates this: “overwork” leading to death, for example, the phenomenon of *karōshi* (death from overwork) now appearing among employees in South Korea and Japan who are forced to work 80 hours per week. However, the explanation of the logic of absolute surplus-value production also requires modification, the least altered part of which is understanding the increase in the quantity of labor as an increase in intensity rather than in extensive magnitude. One of the characteristic features of neoliberal enterprise power techniques is the aim of reducing “free time” as much as possible and increasing labor intensity as much as possible. Individual performance evaluations, competition among employees, and electronic monitoring of employees’ work status are all widely used technical means for raising labor intensity. According to the logic of absolute surplus-value production, in the neoliberal stage of capitalism, increasing labor intensity has not been constrained. It is noteworthy that these new technical means of raising labor intensity also explain the wave of suicides at work—the second typical feature of neoliberalism, namely, the return of “working oneself to death.”

减少每周工作时间的长期趋势正在逆转，这是当前阶段的最显著特征之一，与此同时，退休年龄也开始推迟。此外，各种形式的外包使处于世界经济中心的资本主义企业能够在本国禁止的年龄段内雇佣他国的儿童及青少年工作。就劳动时间而言，在工作日层面（由于工作日界限的模糊，以及工作对私人生活的殖民化），以及在每周的工作时间与工作年限层面，我们发现了绝对剩余价值生产逻辑的最纯粹形式：让人们尽可能多地工作以生产更多的剩余价值。一个典型现象的回归说明了这一点：“过度劳动”导致死亡，例如，如今出现在每周被迫工作80小时的韩国和日本的雇员中的“过劳死”现象。但是，对绝对剩余价值生产逻辑的说明也需要修改，其中修改最少的部分是将劳动量的增加理解为强度的增加而非外延量的增加。新自由主义企业权力技术的特征之一，就是以尽可能地减少“空闲时间”并尽可能地提高劳动强度为目的。个人业绩评估、员工之间的竞争，以及对员工工作状态的电子监控等都是为了提高劳动强度而广泛使用的技术手段。按照绝对剩余价值的生产逻辑，在新自由主义的资本主义阶段，增加劳动强度并没有受到限制。值得注意的是，这些提高劳动强度的新技术手段也解释了工作中的自杀潮，这是新自由主义的第二个典型特征，即“过度工作至死”的回归。

The logic of absolute surplus-value production is also manifested in the pursuit of profit growth by reducing overall wage costs (even when the wages of high-income earners rise substantially). When this reduction is achieved by directly or indirectly (through cuts in social welfare) lowering wage levels, or, even more so, by developing forms of unpaid work (internships or so-called job placements, such as one-euro jobs), it embodies the purest form of the logic of absolute surplus-value production: lowering wages while simultaneously lowering consumption standards. However, the reduction of wage costs also manifests through other mechanisms, in which the production of absolute surplus value takes a modified form, although some of these mechanisms likewise cause a decline in consumption standards. In fact, neoliberal capitalism also reduces wage costs by subcontracting or converting employees into freelancers to hire cheaper workers, and by relocating enterprises to countries where wage levels—directly or indirectly—are lower.

绝对剩余价值生产逻辑还表现为通过降低总体工资成本（即使在高收入人员工资大幅上涨的情况下）谋求利润增长。当这种降低是通过直接或间接（减少社会福利）降低工资水平，或者更有甚者，通过发展无薪工作的形式（实习或所谓的就业安置，如一欧元工作）来实现时，则体现了绝对剩余价值生产逻辑的最纯粹形式：降低工资的同时伴随着消费标准的下降。但是，工资成本的降低也会通过其他机制表现出来，在这些机制中绝对剩余价值的生产呈现为一种修正的形式，尽管其中一些机制同样造成了消费标准的下降。事实上，新自由主义资本主义还通过分包或将雇员转变成自由职业者来雇佣更便宜的员工，并通过将企业外迁至在直接或间接层面工资水平较低的国家等方式来降低工资成本。

Finally, it should be noted that the mechanisms driving the increase in working hours and labor intensity are intertwined in various ways with the mechanisms for reducing wage costs. Layoffs, while cutting wage costs, can also bring about an increase in labor intensity. The weakening of labor law in the economically central countries removes obstacles to the technical means of increasing labor intensity, while also eliminating indirect wage costs (i.e., the possibility of compensation in the event of unfair dismissal). Relocating enterprises to countries where labor law is not strictly enforced follows the same logic. It needs to be explained that this latest reversal of the long-term trend formed during the Fordist period—a reversal that would have been difficult to predict 50 years ago—contains both basic tendencies of absolute surplus-value production: the development of employment in the informal sector, both in central and peripheral countries, even though this form of employment seemed to be on an inevitable downward trajectory.

最后应该注意到，推动劳动时间增加和劳动强度提高的机制与降低工资成本的机制以各种方式交织在一起。裁员在削减工资成本的同时，还能够带来劳动强度的增加。经济中心国家对劳动法的削弱为实现增加劳动强度的技术手段消除了障碍，同时也消除了间接的工资成本（即在不公平地被解雇的情况下获得补偿的可能性）。将企业外迁到不能严格执行劳动法的国家也是同样的逻辑。需要说明的是，对在福特时期形成的长期趋势的最后一次逆转包含了绝对剩余价值生产的两个基本趋势，而这一逆转在50年前是很难预测的：不管是在中心国家还是在外围国家，非正式部门的就业都在发展，即使这种形式的就业似乎处在不可避免的下降趋势中。

In order to identify the changes in the accumulation logic and forms of exploitation specific to neoliberalism, the distinction between absolute and relative surplus value remains meaningful, even if one no longer relies on the theory of value to define it. Of course, the distinction between these two forms of exploitation cannot be mechanically extended to periods beyond those analyzed by Marx. The widespread adoption of information and communication technologies has already shown that the pursuit of increasing productivity through technological progress has not been abandoned. From this, we can discover that contemporary capitalism also has another characteristic, which in Marx’s *Capital* is associated with the concept of relative surplus value, namely, the “real subsumption” of labor: the labor process is continuously transformed to increase labor intensity and reduce workers’ insubordination. The return of absolute surplus-value production is a return of absolute surplus value with relative subsumption, which from another angle shows that Marx’s concept of capitalist exploitation remains relevant for analyzing the power relations specific to neoliberal enterprises. In the century and a half since the publication of *Capital*, the forms of labor organization have undergone enormous changes, but even today, distinguishing between the social division of labor within society and the technical and political division of labor within the workplace remains meaningful. Marx thereby emphasized that the introduction of machinery, while reducing the skill content of work, also weakens workers’ capacity to negotiate and resist. People working from “scripts” in call centers fit this situation. From a broader perspective, neoliberal labor organization is built both on competition among workers and internal flexibility, and on the informational monitoring of individual performance, which well illustrates that organizational and technological changes are aimed not only at increasing productivity but also at weakening workers’ capacity to resist as much as possible.

为了识别构成新自由主义特有的积累逻辑与剥削形式的变化，即使人们不再依靠价值理论对其进行定义，绝对剩余价值与相对剩余价值之间的区别仍然具有意义。当然，这两种剥削形式的区分不能机械地推广到马克思所分析的时期以外的其他时期。信息技术与通讯技术的普及已经证明，依靠技术进步提高生产率的追求并没有被放弃。由此可以发现，当代资本主义还具有另外一个特征，这一特征在马克思的《资本论》中与相对剩余价值的概念相关联，即劳动的“实质从属”关系：劳动过程被不断改造，以增加劳动强度并减少工人不服从的状况。绝对剩余价值生产的回归是具有相对从属性的绝对剩余价值的回归，这从另一个角度说明马克思的资本主义剥削概念在分析新自由主义企业特有的权力关系时仍然具有现实意义。在《资本论》出版后的一个半世纪以来，劳动的组织形式发生了巨大变化，但即使在今天，区分社会内部的劳动分工与工作场所内劳动的技术和政治分工仍然具有意义。马克思由此强调，机器的引入在降低了工作技术含量的同时，也削弱了工人谈判与抵抗的能力。在呼叫中心按照“脚本”工作的人就符合这种情况。从更广泛的角度看，新自由主义的劳动组织既建立在工人之间的竞争与内部的灵活性上，也建立在对个人表现的信息化监控上，这很好地说明了组织与技术的改变不仅是为了提高生产率，也是为了尽可能地削弱工人的抵抗能力。

Therefore, we believe that Marx’s theory of capitalist exploitation remains valid in real society today, not only because distinguishing between different forms of exploitation helps to understand the specific characteristics of labor exploitation under neoliberal capitalism, but also because it reveals the universal logic of capitalist exploitation that has always been effective: combining the accumulation of capital with the continuous renewal of the coercive mechanism for extracting surplus labor.

因此，我们认为，马克思的资本主义剥削理论在现实社会中仍然有效，这不仅是因为区分剥削的不同形式有助于理解劳动剥削在新自由主义资本主义条件下的具体特征，也因为它揭示了始终有效的资本主义剥削的普遍逻辑，即将资本的积累与持续更新剩余劳动的强制机制结合在一起。

(Author: Emmanuel Renault, Department of Philosophy, Paris Nanterre University, France; Translator: Wang Yue, Department of Philosophy, Peking University)

（作者：埃玛纽埃尔·雷诺（Emmanuel Renault），法国巴黎南特雷大学哲学系；译者：王玥，北京大学哲学系）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心