Yolanda Díaz Says Labor Is Not a Commodity: A Serious Mistake

Yolanda Díaz at an informal meeting of employment and social affairs minister Namur Expo, January 2024. (Photo: Belgian Presidency of the Council of the EU 2024 from Belgium, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons)

This article was originally published by La Marea on 24 January 2024 and translated by John Collins. 

Yolanda Díaz, second Vice President and Minister of Labor and Social Economy [in the current Spanish government], recently appeared before the parliamentary Commission on Labor, Social Economy, Inclusion, Social Security and Migration and dedicated her remarks to breaking down the proposed steps to be undertaken in the current legislative session. At the start of the hearing, she said something that for her is probably obvious and doesn’t require any discussion: “Labor is not a commodity.” An affirmation that, in addition to sounding good, seems obvious, even progressive, in contrasting commodities with labor rights. But the issue is more complex and, in my view, says a lot about the approach of Yolanda Díaz and Sumar. [Editor’s note: Sumar, the leftist party that Díaz leads, is a member of Spain’s current coalition government led by Pedro Sánchez of the Socialist party.]

“Starting from the fact that labor is a commodity that the owners of capital purchase means recognizing that in this market, social classes with different and often antagonistic interests confront each other. Workers have an objective interest in seeing wages go up or at least stay at decent levels, even more so when inflation continuously reduces their purchasing power, while the logic of the capitalists is to maximize profits and intensify the exploitation of employees. ”

In contrast to the Minister’s claim, labor is clearly a commodity. And this is because, like all commodities, it is bought and sold in the market, keeping in mind that it does have important features that differentiate it clearly from other forms of commodity exchange. Workers offer their labor power to the owners of the means of production, who buy it in exchange for a wage. This is the essence of capitalism; far from being a peripheral or irrelevant issue, I would say that it constitutes one of the keys that explain the operation and reproduction of the system. 

From this perspective, it is correct to use the expression “labor market,” but it’s necessary here to point out something. Because conservative economists use it to sneak in the idea that this market, like any other (idealizing the operation of actually existing markets), in order to be “efficient,” needs to operate with “flexibility,” which they interpret as little to no interference from public actors and regulations (the rights to which Yolanda Díaz was referring). A market, in other words, in which the supply (workers) and the demand (businesspeople) are confronting similar conditions. 

According to this vision, its smooth operation would require eliminating or reducing to a minimum the “restrictions” that would hinder it (a minimum wage, unemployment benefits, collective bargaining…). The conclusion is clear and dangerous: labor rights and wages must be reduced in order to create employment and also to promote a stable macroeconomic environment. 

I find myself light years away from this statement - which not only has served as a justification for launching a tsunami against the rights of workers, but also has had devastating effects on the functioning of economies, not to be confused with the interests of elites - but it is important to know that, unlike what the Minister stated, labor is a commodity that is essential for understanding the capitalist dynamic; and I’m referring not only to the capitalism that emerged a couple of centuries ago, but also to its current form. 

The benefits that capital obtains and the wages that workers receive, and their distribution, are the key to understanding the role of consumption and investment in the economic system. In this sense, it’s good to be aware that in recent decades, in the Spanish and European economies, the share of wage income in national income has fallen while that of capital gains has increased, and that this is one of the relevant factors that explain the recent economic crisis. An asymmetry, of course, that has a lot to do with the unequal relations of force between labor and capital. 

Starting from the fact that labor is a commodity that the owners of capital purchase means recognizing that in this market, social classes with different and often antagonistic interests confront each other. Workers have an objective interest in seeing wages go up or at least stay at decent levels, even more so when inflation continuously reduces their purchasing power, while the logic of the capitalists is to maximize profits and intensify the exploitation of employees. 

We can introduce all the complexity we want to these basic principles, and we need to do so if we want to understand the operation of the really existing capitalist system, with complex social and labor structures that don’t allow for reductionist analysis, but we shouldn’t deny the main point: that the essence of the system is the exploitation of one class, the workers, by another, the capitalists. Social classes exist, and their positions are not accidental (at least not necessarily). 

All of the above is not just a theoretical or aesthetic question. Beginning, in effect, from the fact that labor is a commodity opens the door to the correct characterization of the diverse and confronting interests present in the capitalist economy and society. How to articulate this heterogeneity in order to create a progressive social majority that can make a new roadmap possible? How to defeat the resistance of those who enjoy positions of privilege? These are some of the relevant questions that a truly transformational Left needs to answer - questions that aren’t answered, as Yolanda Díaz continually does, by appealing to dialogue, agreement, common sense, or to being politically useful. All of these are important qualities, but to make them into the central axis of political action is not only insufficient, but a measure of a complacent Left.