The worker is subjected to the modes of production but often with below standards living, poverty conditions, and is often never paid right
Leff 21 Leff, Deconstructing Capital and Territorializing Life, Enrique, Professor of Political Ecology at UNAM, pg 148-149 - IShone
What these citations of Marx disclose goes well beyond the fact that non-seasonal and not-working time that constitute conditions of the production process and for the reproduction of agricultural labor power is not adequately valued in the theory of value. They also reveal—and this is the crucial point of debate that poses the environmental question to Marxism—that the natural processes involved in the production of E. Leff commodities, in the value of the labor force in general and in the reproduction of peasants’ labor force in particular, are not valued. the problem is crystal clear: Nature contributes to production,but only socially necessary labor time—the labor-time necessary for production, and consequently for the reproduction of labor force—determined by technological progress, contributes to value formation and the establishment of the rate of surplus value! the problem does not lie only in the fact that labor time fails to coincide with production time, but more fundamentally in the fact that neither Nature’s contribution to production nor the destructive effects of production on Nature is valued. While the poor peasant survives through the articulation of modes of production—many times in extreme conditions of poverty as capital does not pay for dignified, just, and egalitarian standards of living in the reproduction of its needed labor power—Nature does not get paid at all for its contribution to the overall productivity of capitalist agriculture, nor to the global economy. Simply stated, Nature has been externalized by the economy; Nature contributes to production but does not determine value, not in the way that the concept of value and surplus value theory are structured in Marxist theory of value
