Introduction

John Roemer's general theory of exploitation provides an analytical framework for the fundamental problem of any theory of revolution: under what conditions would anyone living under a particular organization of society rationally opt for an alternative? Specifically, Roemer explains why workers living under capitalism should prefer socialism. I believe that his formulation is incorrectly specified and that the answer is erroneous.

In order to get to this issue, some preliminary steps are needed. I begin by summarizing Roemer's two theories of exploitation, that is, those sections of his article that define exploitation, assert its existence, and explain its origins. Then I examine his claim that while class struggle can be understood in terms of, and only in terms of, the exploitation of labor, accumulation of capital is a “technical fact,” not related uniquely to labor exploitation. I argue that the consequence of this formulation is to foreclose a priori the possibility that class conflicts would have any effect on the material well-being of workers under capitalism. Roemer's workers face the stark choice of individually maximizing their wages or collectively struggling for socialism. Unable to struggle for any change under capitalism, they are thus condemned, by his assumptions, to be revolutionary. Roemer fails to demonstrate that anyone living under capitalism, including workers, would have good reasons to prefer socialism. I also believe that I know a valid answer to Roemer's question: for workers, socialism is preferable to capitalism not because it would increase their consumption at the cost of capitalists but because in a socialist society everyone could jointly decide to which needs societal resources should be allocated.