The service sector

[synthesis]

What is the extent to which the service sector has been closely examined in Marxist theory?

I've generally seen two schools of thought on the subject: one being that service workers aren't "real proletarians" because they don't meet some level of physical "productivity" when compared to the manufacturing sector, and the other saying that of course they're "real proletarians" because they have to sell their labor for wages to survive.

I guess I don't find either of these answers completely satisfying. Aren't service workers essentially the end of the chain of production? For example, without a driver, a taxi cab is just a car. I'll admit that I haven't read Das Kapital three times in the original German, but isn't the cab driver creating both use-value and surplus value? I hope the microcosm is coming across here.

Obviously no idea's original; I'm just curious as to whether a) I'm stating the obvious, and/or b) I'm completely wrong and misinterpreting Marx's economics, a field that has never been my strong suit.

[Red_Struggle]

Well, there is this, which is farily new: http://theredphoenixapl.org/2011/02/10/an-analysis-of-the-american-service-economy/

[robbo203]

What is the extent to which the service sector has been closely examined in Marxist theory?

I've generally seen two schools of thought on the subject: one being that service workers aren't "real proletarians" because they don't meet some level of physical "productivity" when compared to the manufacturing sector, and the other saying that of course they're "real proletarians" because they have to sell their labor for wages to survive.

I guess I don't find either of these answers completely satisfying. Aren't service workers essentially the end of the chain of production? For example, without a driver, a taxi cab is just a car. I'll admit that I haven't read Das Kapital three times in the original German, but isn't the cab driver creating both use-value and surplus value? I hope the microcosm is coming across here.

Obviously no idea's original; I'm just curious as to whether a) I'm stating the obvious, and/or b) I'm completely wrong and misinterpreting Marx's economics, a field that has never been my strong suit.

Service sector workers are, of course, part of the working class. The definition of "working class" simply means or embraces anyone who is obliged by economic circumstances to sell their labour power to an employer i.e. they dont possess sufficient capital to live upon

What you are alluding to is unproductive labour - labour which does not produce surplus value (not simply use value) but is, rather, paid out of surplus value. This is not to be confused with the concept of socially useless value which looks at what a person does from the perspective of whether or not it actually contributes anything to human welfare and wellbeing

Some jobs in capitalism can be unproductive and yet be socially useful e.g a teacher employed in a comprehensive school

Some jobs in capitalism can be productive but socially useless e.g. an arms manufacturer

Some jobs in capitalism can be both unproductive and socially useless e.g. banking


The productive/unproductive dichotomy is useful to exame the internal dynamics of capitalism itself since it is all about weath transfers within the capitalist system itself which is usually effected through taxation and so is a burden on the surplus-value producing sector of the economy. This is why modern states are faced with a dillemma - they need an unproductive sector for the efficient functioning of capitalism but they have to balance this against the need for businesses to generate a sufficient profit from which the state acquires its revenues via taxation

The socially useful/socially useless dichotomy is useful for comparing the productive potential of a non-market moneyless future socialist economy with capitalism. Most of the work done in the formal sector of the capitalist economy today is socially useless - meaning that we can more than double the available manpower and resources for socially useful work in socialism. That means socialism would be a vastly more efficient arrangement than capitalism ever could be.

Most of capitalism's necessary (to capitalism, that is) but socially useless labour e.g. banking, insurance, tax collectors, pay departments etc etc is located in the services sector and this, I suggest, is where the real significance of the service sector lies from a revolutionary socialist standpoint. It signifies the enormous potential of a future socialist society to meet our real needs