Cashiers, Clerks, etc

[Susurrus]

Does Marx have anything to say about cashiers, clerks, and what not that don't produce commodities but still sell their labour time? If not, which class do you think they fit in and why?

[Magón]

They're workers.

[hatzel]

Just because you're not working in some factory building cars or some other industrial shit doesn't mean you're not a worker, you know...these people may not instantly consider themselves as 'working class' in modern society (because 'working class' seems to conjure up the image of manual labourers), but that doesn't make any difference to anything...

[Ocean Seal]

Does Marx have anything to say about cashiers, clerks, and what not that don't produce commodities but still sell their labour time? If not, which class do you think they fit in and why?
You don't have to produce physical commodities. You provide a service for the oppressor. That service is a commodity. Without cashiers/clerks the bourgeoisie isn't able to get their products to a market. Cashiers, clerks, truck drivers, and so on are proletarians. Its just common sense.

[Susurrus]

Yeah, had a tiring day, got the marxist definition of proletariat mixed up for a sec there. Thanks all.

[norwegianwood90]

The definition (or more accurately, application) of the term 'proletariat' has certainly expanded since the time in which Marx was writing. During the rise of capitalism at the end of the 18th and throughout the 19th centuries, nearly all labor not performed in agriculture was performed in industry (i.e., factories). The commonly accepted definition of 'proletariat' is best described as the class that does not own the means of production. Cashiers and clerks do not own the means of production, and their labor is exploited by individuals who do own the means of production. Therefore, they belong to the proletariat--the working class.

[Rocky Rococo]

The bottom line is this; if your only way to make money is to sell your time and labor power, then you're working class.

[Blackscare]

Just because you're not working in some factory building cars or some other industrial shit doesn't mean you're not a worker, you know...these people may not instantly consider themselves as 'working class' in modern society (because 'working class' seems to conjure up the image of manual labourers), but that doesn't make any difference to anything...

Actually I think that the only group that may have a hard time considering these people working class are Leftists. Average people tend to have little use for strict definitions they've probably never heard of and would consider it self evident that, since they work for a boss (at a shitty job no less), they're workers.

I mean, what exactly might your hypothetical worker consider themselves, if not a worker?

[Thirsty Crow]

Of course they are working class, even though they do not produce commodities (they are part of the working population operating in a non-productive*, yet vital, "sector" of commodity circulation). That doesn't mean that their living standards or effective exploitation are a non-issue, or that somehow other sections of the working class should be "prefered" over them. In fact, communists should practically and theoretically work towards transcending sectional divisions.

*non-productive of surplus value in the strict sense of the critique of political economy as practised by Marx

Anyhow, that's my view on the matter, and if anyone can effectively show how clerks and cashiers produce surplus value, I'd appreciate a patient demonstration and/or reading material.

[RedGrunt]

Would not the service they create be some sort of commodity?