What's the relationship between unequal exchange theory and Marxist economics? I've seen at least one attempt to theorize unequal exchange as a category directly in Marx's analysis in Capital. But then there's Paul Cockshott who argues unequal exchange theory is un-Marxist because it regresses to a pre-Marxist, moralist notion of exploitation, over the scientific categories explored by Marx and Engels. In Cockshott's opinion, exploitation occurs even when equivalents are exchanged, and therefore there is no need for an unequal exchange theory.
I lean towards the unequal exchange view and see Cockshott's argument being myopic. Just because surplus value is extracted even with the exchange of equivalents, doesn't mean unequal exchange doesn't also persist as a discrete phenomenon. Assuming equivalents are actually exchanged feels very Capital vol. 1 -brained.
But I'm curious if anyone who knows this subject better could help me work through it.
take planet as a whole (a thoroughly marxist notion) producing basket of commodities, you have workers doing socially necessary labor, and receiving equivalent of like 1 hour out of 8 hours worked (of average labor time on the planet). Seems obvious to go to superexploitation thesis. Unequal exchange is not marxist-like, but highlights this dynamic.
Hickel does marxist work, and uses the unequal exchange terms, but i feel like contradiction is surface level at best. Unequality is most obvious when say a bangladeshi worker would try to trade t-shirt she made to union made usa t-shirt. Its exact same t-shirt, one costs 3 dollars, the other 40. And textiles are notoriously badly mechanizable. But if we take planet scale t-shirts we average out that difference, and instead get that bangladeshi worker receives like 1/10th of value and american worker like 7/10 of his value, thus she is superexploited.
What's the relationship between unequal exchange theory and Marxist economics? I've seen at least one attempt to theorize unequal exchange as a category directly in Marx's analysis in Capital. But then there's Paul Cockshott who argues unequal exchange theory is un-Marxist because it regresses to a pre-Marxist, moralist notion of exploitation, over the scientific categories explored by Marx and Engels. In Cockshott's opinion, exploitation occurs even when equivalents are exchanged, and therefore there is no need for an unequal exchange theory.
I lean towards the unequal exchange view and see Cockshott's argument being myopic. Just because surplus value is extracted even with the exchange of equivalents, doesn't mean unequal exchange doesn't also persist as a discrete phenomenon. Assuming equivalents are actually exchanged feels very Capital vol. 1 -brained.
But I'm curious if anyone who knows this subject better could help me work through it.
exploitation on supranational scale?
take planet as a whole (a thoroughly marxist notion) producing basket of commodities, you have workers doing socially necessary labor, and receiving equivalent of like 1 hour out of 8 hours worked (of average labor time on the planet). Seems obvious to go to superexploitation thesis. Unequal exchange is not marxist-like, but highlights this dynamic.
Hickel does marxist work, and uses the unequal exchange terms, but i feel like contradiction is surface level at best. Unequality is most obvious when say a bangladeshi worker would try to trade t-shirt she made to union made usa t-shirt. Its exact same t-shirt, one costs 3 dollars, the other 40. And textiles are notoriously badly mechanizable. But if we take planet scale t-shirts we average out that difference, and instead get that bangladeshi worker receives like 1/10th of value and american worker like 7/10 of his value, thus she is superexploited.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy: