The market, competition, and structural exploitation
The market, competition, and structural exploitation
复制标题
市场、竞争和结构性开发
DOI：
10.1111/1467-8675.12443
复制
发表时间：
2020
期刊：
影响因子：
0.7
通讯作者：
Hannes Kuch
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hannes Kuch
本文认为市场制度在结构上是剥削性的。它允许剥削，它鼓励演员参与其中，甚至迫使他们这样做。在马克思主义内部，这种说法是众所周知的，但如果不强烈依赖马克思主义的概念和论点，它能被辩护吗？我的回答是肯定的，并指出市场竞争的力量是剥削压力的根本来源。我所说的市场，指的是通过产权和私人契约确保经济交易的社会领域，其现代形式的特点是复杂的劳动分工，多个卖者和买者之间存在一定程度的竞争，其中大多数人口依赖于市场收入。将剥削（即不公平地利用他人）系统地与市场制度联系起来，无疑是备受争议的。反对剥削论的一个突出论点是，市场赋予其参与者足够的空间来避免剥削压力。例如，Arneson （2011, pp. 213-214）认为，“‘市场’并不妨碍参与交换的人们朝着平等分享的方向软化交换条件。”另一种观点认为，尽管竞争的力量在市场中是有效的，但竞争是一种“有利于社会的力量”（Dietsch, 2010, p. 223），因为它据称消除了更多的剥削机会，而不是推动行动者参与其中。许多当代市场开发哲学（Miller, 1989; Wertheimer, 1996; Zwolinski, 2010）都接受了这一点，这是新古典经济学的基本主旨。第三种观点，源于市场的社会哲学，批评后一种观点是对市场的错误理想化，但最终，它有效地得出了惊人的相似结果。在这里，从迪尔凯姆（1893/2013）到埃齐奥尼（1988）的论点是，经济理论通常通过假定孤立的、纯粹以战略为导向的效用最大化者为其核心，从市场的社会性中抽象出来。然而，在现实中，市场总是嵌入社会和道德规范，赋予经济行为者重要的道德能力，使他们能够避免剥削，即使有机会也是如此。作为这一观点的主要倡导者，霍尼思承认，市场参与者可能会利用市场“欺骗、积累财富和剥削他人”。
This article claims that the institution of the market is structurally exploitative. It allows for exploitation, it encourages actors to engage in it and it even pressurizes them to do so. Within Marxism, this claim is well known, but can it be defended without strongly relying on Marxist concepts and arguments? I will answer in the affirmative and identify the forces of market competition to be a fundamental source of exploitative pressures. By the market, I mean the social sphere that secures economic transactions through property rights and private contracts, and which, in its modern form, is characterized by a complex division of labor, a certain degree of competition between multiple sellers and buyers, and in which the majority of the population depends on market income. To link exploitation—that is, taking unfair advantage of others—systematically to the institution of the market is certainly highly contested. One prominent argument against the exploitation thesis is that the market grants its participants sufficient latitude to refrain from exploitative pressures. Arneson (2011, pp. 213–214), for example, argues that “the ‘market’does not block people engaged in exchange from softening the terms of exchange in the direction of egalitarian sharing.” Another line of argument objects that although the force of competition is operative in the market, competition is a “force for the good in society”(Dietsch, 2010, p. 223), as it allegedly eliminates ever more opportunities for exploitation rather than pushing actors to engage in it. Embraced by many contemporary philosophies of market exploitation (Miller, 1989; Wertheimer, 1996; Zwolinski, 2010), this is the basic thrust of neoclassical economics. A third position, stemming from the social philosophy of the market, criticizes this latter perspective as a fallacious idealization of the market but in the end, it effectively arrives at surprisingly similar results. Here, the argument, from Durkheim (1893/2013) to Etzioni (1988), is that economic theory usually abstracts from the sociality of the market by presupposing isolated, purely strategically oriented utility maximizers at its core. In reality, however, markets are always embedded in social and moral norms that endow economic actors with significant moral capacities, enabling them to refrain from exploitation even where there is an opportunity for it. As a prominent advocate of this position, Honneth concedes that market actors may use the market “to cheat, to pile on wealth and exploit others”
登录
查看更多内容
真正的乌托邦、互惠和对他人的关心
影响因子：
0.7
作者：
Hannes Kuch
通讯作者：
Hannes Kuch
自由资本主义国家的剥削和经济正义
影响因子：
0.8
作者：
M. Reiff
通讯作者：
M. Reiff
影响因子：
2.2
作者：
N. Vrousalis
通讯作者：
N. Vrousalis
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
Timo Jütten
通讯作者：
Timo Jütten
爵士乐队、露营旅行和去商品化：G. A. Cohen 谈社区
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2012
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
N. Vrousalis
通讯作者：
N. Vrousalis