HRM AND THE ETHICS OF COMMODIFIED WORK 109Furthermore, not only is the wage–labour contract exploitative, but mar-
ket economies are so constructed as to place a systematic pressure on each
capitalist to increase the level of exploitation. This is a consequence of the
powerful competitive spirit of the capitalist or market economy that places
each capitalist in a quasi-Darwinian struggle for survival against each and
every other capitalist. Competition for markets leads to downward pressures
on prices—a capitalist can gain a competitive advantage if he or she undercuts
the prices of his or her competitors. This downward pressure on prices leads
to a fall in surplus value. There is pressure on the capitalist to reduce his or her
costs, most notably the cost of labour. Hence the competitive pressures of the
market lead to downward pressures on wages and the increased exploitation
of the proletariat. This is Marx’s famous ‘immiseration thesis’ (Marx 1954:
579–82). The continued immiseration of the working class was to provide
the material conditions for the eventual revolt of the working classes and the
overthrow of capitalism.
The significant point for our purposes, however, is that according to Marx
the exploitation that is an essential part of the wage–labour contract means
that the pursuit of profit must necessarily in turn be an exploitative practice.
In addition, there are other criticisms of the profit motive within the social-
ist canon, especially in the writings of philosophers Marx derisively labelled
‘utopian socialists’, which do not rely on this idea of a true price of labour.
For instance, the French socialist, Charles Fourier, believed that commerce
generally rested on deceit and that the profit could only be pursued through
lies and calumny. Fourier tells how although he was taught in catechism and
at school that one must never lie, once he worked in his parents’ business he
realized he was being trained ‘at an early age in the occupation of lying,the
art of selling’. Because of his taste for truth he vowed at age 7 an eternal hatred
of commerce (Fourier 1971: 150). On this view an ethics of work in a market
economy is impossible since business is grounded in what is a fundamentally
morally flawed relationship.
Is the pursuit of profitnecessarilyexploitative? I think there are good reasons
for rejecting this claim, at least interpreted in the absolute sweeping manner
we find above. On the Marxist story profit is necessarily exploitative since it
is only gained by failing to pay workers the true worth of their labour. Any
financial difference (i.e. the profit) between the price of a commodity and
the cost of production is entirely unearned. This assumes that the capitalist
does absolutely nothing whatsoever. However, there are good reasons for
thinking that this is false. Consider two things a capitalist might legitimately
be thought to do that are worthy of reward. First, there is the organization of
both factors of production and labour. Organizing labour and other factors
of production involves considerable work, as does selling outputs and ensur-
ing the continuation of future markets. Second, there is entrepreneurial risk.
The establishment of a business requires that the capitalist risk his capital.