Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T10:59:28.691Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ne Hic Saltaveris: The Marxian Theory of Exploitation After Roemer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

Gilbert L. Skillman
Gilbert L. Skillman
Affiliation:
Wesleyan University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In his book A General Theory of Exploitation and Class (1982) (hereafter GT), John Roemer employs the tools of mainstream general equilibrium and game-theoretic analysis to develop a fundamental critique and broadbased reformulation of Marxian economic theory. Perhaps Roemer's most striking departure from traditional Marxian tenets lies in his explanation of the material basis of exploitation in capitalist economies. Roemer argues that capitalist exploitation must be understood as essentially the consequence of exchange given differential ownership of relatively scarce productive assets (DORSPA). In particular, Roemer concludes that capitalist exploitation does not fundamentally depend on capitalist domination of production, or what Marx termed the subsumption of labor under capital.

Type
Essays
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , October 1995 , pp. 309 - 331
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, W.Locke, H. and Frank, Thompson. 1988. ‘Neoclassical Marxism’. Science and Society, 52: 215–28Google Scholar
Ansberry, Clare. 1993. ‘Workers are forced to take more jobs with few benefits‘ Wall Street journal, 221 (March 11): Al, A9Google Scholar
Berg, Maxine. 1986. The Age of Manufactures: Industry, Innovation and Work in Britain 1700–1820. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Berg, Maxine, Pat, Hudson and Michael, Sonenscher. 1983. ‘Manufacture in town and country before the factory’. In Manufacture in Town and Country Before the factory, pp. 1–32. Maxine, Berg, Pat, Hudson, and Michael, Sonenscher (eds.). Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowles, Samuel. 1985. “The production process in a competitive economy: Walrasian, Neo-Hobbesian, and Marxian models’. American Economic Review, 75:16–36Google Scholar
Bowles, Samuel and Herbert, Gintis. 1975. Schooling in Capitalist America: Educational Reform and the Contradictions of Economic Life. Basic BooksGoogle Scholar
Bowles, Samuel and Herbert, Gintis. 1990. ‘Contested exchange: new microfoundations of the political economy of capitalism’. Politics and Society, 18:165–222Google Scholar
Bowles, Samuel, Herbert, Gintis and Bo, Gustafsson. 1993. Markets and Democracy: Participation, Accountability and Efficiency. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Braverman, Harry. 1974. Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. Monthly Review PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devine, James and Gary, Dymski. 1989. ‘Roemer's theory of capitalist exploitation: the contradictions of Walrasian marxism’. Review of Radical Political Economics, 21:13–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devine, James and Gary, Dymski. 1991. ‘Roemer's general theory of exploitation is a special case’. Economics and Philosophy, 7:235–75Google Scholar
Devine, James and Gary, Dymski. 1992. ‘Walrasian Marxism once again’. Economics and Philosophy, 8:157–62Google Scholar
Dymski, Gary and John, Elliott. 1989. ‘Roemer vs. Marx: should anyone be interested in exploitation?’ In Analyzing Marxism: New Essays on Analytical Marxism, pp. 333–74. Robert, Ware and Kai, Nielsen (eds.). The University of Calgary PressGoogle Scholar
Edwards, Richard. 1979. Contested Terrain: The Transformation of the Workplace in the Twentieth Century. Basic BooksGoogle Scholar
Foley, Duncan. 1989. ‘Roemer on Marx on exploitation’. Economics and Politics, 1:187–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, Sanford and Oliver, Hart. 1980. ‘An analysis of the principal-agent problem’. Econometrica, 51:7–45Google Scholar
Hahnel, Robin and Michael, Albert. 1990. Quiet Revolution in Welfare Economics. Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
Holmström, Bengt. 1979. ‘Moral hazard and observability’. Bell journal of Economics, 10:74–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmström, Bengt. 1982. ‘Moral hazard in teams’. Bell Journal of Economics, 13:324–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmström, Bengt and Paul, Milgrom. 1991. ‘Multitask principal-agent analyses: incentive contracts, asset ownership, and job design’, journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 7:24–52Google Scholar
Houston, David. 1989. ‘Roemer on exploitation and class’. Review of Radical Political Economics, 21:175–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, M. and King, J. 1992. A History of Marxian Economics: Volume II, 1929–1990. Princeton University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kriedte, Peter. 1983. Peasants, Landlords and Merchant Capitalists: Empire and the World Economy, 1500–1800. Berg Publishers LtdGoogle Scholar
Lawrance, Emily. 1991. ‘Poverty and the rate of time preference: evidence from panel data’. journal of Political Economy, 99:54–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lebowitz, Michael A. 1988. ‘Is “Analytical Marxism” Marxism?’ Science and Society, 52:191–214Google Scholar
Lohr, Steve. 1992. ‘More workers in the U.S. are becoming hired guns’. New York Times, 141 (August 14): Al, D2Google Scholar
Ma, Chin-to, John, Moore and Steven, Turnbull. 1988. ‘Stopping agents from “cheating”’. journal of Economic Theory, 46:355–72Google Scholar
Marglin, Stephen A. 1974. ‘What do bosses do?’ Revieiv of Radical Political Economics, 6:1–60Google Scholar
Marx, Karl. 1971. Theories of Surplus Value, Part III. Progress PublishersGoogle Scholar
Marx, Karl. 1990a. Capital, Volume I [1867]. Penguin BooksGoogle Scholar
Marx, Karl. 1990b. ‘Results of the immediate process of production (Resultate)’ [1933]. In Capital, Volume I, pp. 948–1084. Penguin BooksGoogle Scholar
Marx, Karl. 1991. Capital, Volume III [1894]. Penguin BooksGoogle Scholar
Marx, Karl. 1992. Capital, Volume II [1885]. Penguin BooksGoogle Scholar
Marx, Karl. 1993. Grundrisse [1973]. Penguin BooksGoogle Scholar
Milgrom, Paul and John, Roberts. 1992. Economics, Organization and Management. Prentice HallGoogle Scholar
Radner, Roy. 1985. ‘Repeated principal-agent games with discounting’. Econometrica, 53:1173–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radner, Roy. 1986. ‘Repeated moral hazard with low discount rates’. In Uncertainty, Information, and Communication: Essays in Honor of Kenneth J. Arrow, Volume III, pp. 25–63. Walter, Heller, Ross, Starr and David, Starrett (eds.). Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Reich, Michael and Devine, James. 1981. ‘The microeconomics of conflict and hierarchy in capitalist production’. Review of Radical Political Economics, 12:27–45Google Scholar
Reiman, Jeffrey. 1987. ‘Exploitation, force, and the moral assessment of capitalism: thoughts on Roemer and Cohen’. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 16:2–41Google Scholar
Reiman, Jeffrey. 1990. ‘Why worry about how exploitation is defined? Reply to John Roemer’. Social Theory and Practice, 16:101–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roemer, John. 1982. A General Theory of Exploitation and Class. Harvard University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roemer, John. 1983. ‘Unequal exchange, labor migration, and international capital flows: a theoretical synthesis’. In Marxism, Central Planning, and the Soviet Economy: Economic Essays in Honor of Alexander Erlich. Padma, Desai (ed.). The MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Roemer, John. 1988. Free to Lose: An Introduction to Marxist Economic Philosophy. Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
Ryder, Harl E. 1985. ‘Heterogeneous time preferences and the distribution of wealth’ Mathematical Social Sciences, 9:63–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sappington, David. 1983. ‘Limited liability contracts between principal and agent’, journal of Economic Theory, 29:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiglitz, Joseph. 1975. ‘Incentives, risk, and information: notes toward a theory of hierarchy’. Bell Journal of Economics, 6:552–79Google Scholar