parasites, pimps, and capitalists: a naturalistic conception of exploitation, tommie shelby (2002)
(382) defending a nonmoral notion of exploitation
(389) 'outcome' model of parasitism--paraiste benefits, host is harmed vs. process model of parasitism--parasite scrounges on host's foraging efforts (i.e., distribution of benefits vs. how exploiters obtain benefits)
(393) 'basic structure of exploitation' (BSE): (a) if Y forced to make sacrifice which benefits X; (b) X obtains this advantage by virtue of some power over Y
(394-395) defining 'harm'/'sacrifice' -- it can't be the case that it's only exploitation of the exploited gets no benefit, because there are examples of exploitative relationships in which the exploited gets some benefit (i.e., a wage, a gig, etc.) [seems to me you'll have to introduce some kind of counterfactual notion]
(397-398) the cause of compulsion need not be another agent--compulsion by circumstance can lead to 'opportunistic' compulsion [vs. Nozick]
(403) does Shaq exploit his opponents?
(403) domination and exploitation can come apart, at times
(404) for the MArxist concept, exploitative relationships need to be self-reproducing. in other words, add (c) to BSE's (a) and (b). (c) being that the relationship persists and is essential to reproduction
(408) sum of SER in Marxist terms [Shelby cashing this out w/o the LTV]
(412) surplus appropriation can be non-exploitative provided tht benefits don't accrue b/c of a group's power over productive resources
(413) conditions of SER (forced to do surplus labour) can be product of compulsion by circumstance, for sure
(413) opportunistic exploiters (capitalists who benefit from workers' double-freedom) vs. coercive exploiters (added dimensions of the pimp-prostitute relationship, etc.)
(416) three kinds of Marxist approaches to the problem of exploitaiton: (a) distributive, that exploitation unjustly distributes some important good; (b) principled, that exploitation violates some important principle; (c) nonmoral, which Shelby is arguing we should take seriously [the claim, again, is not that this undermines the moral critique of Marxists, just that the fact of exploitation can be established independent of its evaluation]
(382) defending a nonmoral notion of exploitation
(389) 'outcome' model of parasitism--paraiste benefits, host is harmed vs. process model of parasitism--parasite scrounges on host's foraging efforts (i.e., distribution of benefits vs. how exploiters obtain benefits)
(393) 'basic structure of exploitation' (BSE): (a) if Y forced to make sacrifice which benefits X; (b) X obtains this advantage by virtue of some power over Y
(394-395) defining 'harm'/'sacrifice' -- it can't be the case that it's only exploitation of the exploited gets no benefit, because there are examples of exploitative relationships in which the exploited gets some benefit (i.e., a wage, a gig, etc.) [seems to me you'll have to introduce some kind of counterfactual notion]
(397-398) the cause of compulsion need not be another agent--compulsion by circumstance can lead to 'opportunistic' compulsion [vs. Nozick]
(403) does Shaq exploit his opponents?
(403) domination and exploitation can come apart, at times
(404) for the MArxist concept, exploitative relationships need to be self-reproducing. in other words, add (c) to BSE's (a) and (b). (c) being that the relationship persists and is essential to reproduction
(408) sum of SER in Marxist terms [Shelby cashing this out w/o the LTV]
(412) surplus appropriation can be non-exploitative provided tht benefits don't accrue b/c of a group's power over productive resources
(413) conditions of SER (forced to do surplus labour) can be product of compulsion by circumstance, for sure
(413) opportunistic exploiters (capitalists who benefit from workers' double-freedom) vs. coercive exploiters (added dimensions of the pimp-prostitute relationship, etc.)
(416) three kinds of Marxist approaches to the problem of exploitaiton: (a) distributive, that exploitation unjustly distributes some important good; (b) principled, that exploitation violates some important principle; (c) nonmoral, which Shelby is arguing we should take seriously [the claim, again, is not that this undermines the moral critique of Marxists, just that the fact of exploitation can be established independent of its evaluation]
No comments:
Post a Comment