👤 About the Author
Kate Raworth
Oxford University's Environmental Change Institute; Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences
Kate Raworth, ur. 1970 w Wielkiej Brytanii, to angielska ekonomistka, twórczyni modelu 'ekonomii obwarzanka', równoważącego podstawowe potrzeby ludzkie z granicami planetarnymi.[1][2][3] Ukończyła z wyróżnieniem BA z polityki, filozofii i ekonomii oraz MSc z ekonomii rozwoju na Uniwersytecie Oksfordzkim; ma doktorat honoris causa Lausanne.[2][3] Kariera: praca z mikroprzedsiębiorcami na Zanzibarze, współautorstwo Raportu UNDP o Rozwoju Człowieka, dekada w Oxfam.[2][3][4] Senior Visiting Research Associate w Environmental Change Institute Uniwersytetu Oksfordzkiego i profesor praktyki na Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences.[3][7] Jej bestseller z 2017 *Doughnut Economics* (tłum. na 20 języków) krytykuje obsesję PKB i promuje regeneracyjne gospodarki.[1][2][3] Członkini Club of Rome, doradza organizacjom globalnym, wpływa na miasta jak Amsterdam.[1][2][3]
Mariana Mazzucato
University College London (UCL)
Mariana Francesca Mazzucato (ur. 16 czerwca 1968) to włosko-amerykańska ekonomistka, profesor ekonomii innowacji i wartości publicznej na University College London (UCL), założycielka Instytutu Innowacji i Celu Publicznego (IIPP) w 2017 r. Jej prace, m.in. *The Entrepreneurial State* (2013), *The Value of Everything* (2018) i *Mission Economy* (2021), podkreślają rolę państwa jako śmiałego inwestora w innowacje. Wcześniej na Univ. Sussex (2011-2017). Doradza liderom, przewodniczy radzie WHO ds. ekonomii zdrowia. Nagrody: Grande Ufficiale Włoch (2021), CBE (2025), John von Neumann (2020).[1][2][3]
Harry Braverman
Monthly Review Press (as managing director)
Harry Braverman (1920–1976) był amerykańskim marksistą, robotnikiem, ekonomistą politycznym i rewolucjonistą, urodzonym w Brooklynie w rodzinie robotniczej.[1][3] Jako metalowiec z czasów Wielkiego Kryzysu dołączył jako nastolatek do trockistowskiej Partii Socjalistycznych Robotników (SWP), pisząc pod pseudonimem Harry Frankel do wyrzucenia w 1953 r.[3][4] Współzałożył „The American Socialist” z Bertem Cochranem, rozwijając idee o automatyzacji i kapitale monopolistycznym.[2][4] Jako dyrektor zarządzający Monthly Review Press wydał w 1974 r. kluczową książkę „Labor and Monopoly Capital”, analizującą marksistowską teorię procesu pracy, degradację pracy pod taylorizmem i rozwój sektora usług.[1][3][4] Uznany za organicznego intelektualistę, wpłynął na studia pracy do śmierci 2 sierpnia 1976 r.[1][4]
Introduction
Labor exploitation is the systematic appropriation of the fruits of others' efforts, deeply rooted in power relations. This article analyzes this issue, drawing from critical tradition – from Marx to Critical Management Studies (CMS). It presents mechanisms for masking exploitation, forms of employee resistance, and alternative economic models that redefine the concept of value and the purpose of the economy.
Critical Tradition: Labor Exploitation and Degradation
The critical tradition, from Karl Marx to Critical Management Studies (CMS), defines exploitation as the systematic appropriation of surplus value created by unpaid labor. Harry Braverman expanded on this idea, describing the phenomenon of deskilling – the deliberate degradation of work. This involves stripping employees of autonomy and knowledge to make them more easily controlled and replaceable components of the production system.
Mainstream management masks this process using neutral language. “Efficiency” and “optimization” become a veil for exploitation. Ideology plays a key role here, presenting inequalities as the natural order of things or a “necessary adaptation” to the market. Responsibility for failure is shifted to the individual, who is labeled as “unadapted” or “resistant to change.”
Everyday Forms of Resistance: Employees Versus Control
In the face of systemic control, resistance emerges. Employees resort to the so-called “weapons of the weak” – subtle acts of defiance, such as slowing down the pace of work or deliberate inefficiency. In global corporations, this takes the form of mimicry: subsidiaries ostensibly adapt imposed standards, but in reality, modify them for their own needs. This resistance proves that humans never fully accept being reduced to mere resources.
An attempt to respond to criticism is stakeholder-oriented marketing. It offers employees ideological benefits – a sense of purpose and alignment with company values. However, from a critical perspective, this can be a sophisticated form of control that alleviates tensions and pacifies potential rebellion without changing fundamental power relations.
New Economic Models: From Growth to Well-being
New economic models propose an alternative to the logic of exploitation. Kate Raworth, in her concept of “doughnut economics,” defines the goal of the economy as meeting human needs within the planetary boundaries. Exploitation here is understood more broadly – as any activity that violates the social foundation or overshoots the ecological ceiling, thereby challenging the idea of unlimited GDP growth.
Mariana Mazzucato, in turn, exposes a fundamental flaw in contemporary economics: confusing price with value. This leads to systemic injustice, where parasitic practices (rent-seeking) are valued higher than work crucial for society, such as care or education. The economy should reward the creation of real value, not its extraction.
The problem of exploitation is interdisciplinary, connecting economics with sociology, philosophy, and ecology. Today, new technologies further complicate it. Artificial intelligence redefines the concept of work, creating the risk of new, algorithmized forms of control and exclusion.
Conclusion
In a world where work is reduced to a cost and value is confused with price, the question of the dignity of human effort becomes crucial. Raworth’s and Mazzucato’s proposals point the way toward an economy that serves well-being, not merely capital accumulation. Ultimately, it is the redefinition of value that will determine whether we build a system that rewards what sustains life, or condemn ourselves to destruction in pursuit of illusory profit.
📄 Full analysis available in PDF
Frequently Asked Questions
What is labor exploitation from a critical perspective?
The exploitation of labor is the systemic taking over of the fruits of others' efforts, treated not only as an economic fact, but above all as a structural injustice rooted in power relations, leading to the degradation of humanity.
What are the main mechanisms of concealment and normalization of exploitation?
Exploitation is concealed through language (e.g., "optimization" instead of "degradation"), ideological justifications ("civilizing missions"), and the individualization of blame, where responsibility for failures is shifted to the individual instead of the system.
Who created the concept of "deskilling" and what does it mean?
The concept of "deskilling" (job degradation) was developed by Harry Braverman. It refers to the systematic stripping of employees of their autonomy, knowledge, and skills in order to increase control and efficiency in the work process.
Does stakeholder marketing solve the problem of labor exploitation?
From a critical perspective, stakeholder marketing can be viewed as a sophisticated form of ideological pacification. While it may provide employees with a sense of meaning, it does not necessarily eliminate structural inequalities, but rather mitigates them within the logic of capital.
What forms of resistance to exploitation are discussed in the text?
The text describes various forms of resistance, from subtle acts such as slowing down the pace or minor acts of sabotage (Scott's "weapons of the weak") to complex strategies of mimicry in global corporations, where subordinates give local meaning to imposed practices.
What is the importance of language in the context of exploitation?
Language plays a key role in normalizing exploitation, masking it through euphemisms like "efficiency" or "optimization." It becomes a tool of ideology that presents injustice as necessity or progress.
