Does the LTV only apply to commodity production?

[ARomanCandle]

Is surplus value extracted from "non-productive" (no use or exchange value) service based jobs? These service based jobs (eg. cashier) seem to dominate the west, as commodity production has been outsourced.

I guess I have trouble seeing how the LTV applies to these workers, and whether they can be said to be exploited in the same sense as workers who make commodities.

[blake 3:17]

The simple answer is yes. Without the the cashier, how is the exchange value realized?

I'm no expert on this issue & continue to find it perplexing after many years considering it. Hopefully others will give a fuller explanation. BTW -- Great question!

[bropasaran]

Service is an intangible commodity.

E.g. take a simple imaginary firm that provides plumbing services and has only one worker- in two cases. In the first case, it is a worker coop (so, the worker is the owner). The plumber goes to a house, gives the service, recieves money ammount X, and that's his. In the second case, there is an owner that isn't the worker. THe worker goes to a house, gives the service, recieves money ammount X, and that's not his, it belongs to the boss. Boss pays him Y, which is smaller then X, and X - Y = surplus value.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Service is an intangible commodity.

E.g. take a simple imaginary firm that provides plumbing services and has only one worker- in two cases. In the first case, it is a worker coop (so, the worker is the owner). The plumber goes to a house, gives the service, recieves money ammount X, and that's his. In the second case, there is an owner that isn't the worker. THe worker goes to a house, gives the service, recieves money ammount X, and that's not his, it belongs to the boss. Boss pays him Y, which is smaller then X, and X - Y = surplus value.

But then again, as far as I remember, Marx said that a security guard in a factory is not creating value, but merely get a part of surplus value derived from commodity production.

If that is true, which, according to Marx, it is - some of the service workers don't create value and, hence, don't get exploited by definition, which is moderately perplexing.

[Five Year Plan]

Is surplus value extracted from service based jobs? These service based jobs (eg., claims adjuster, cashier, etc) seem to dominate the west, as commodity production has been outsourced.

I guess I have trouble seeing how the LTV applies to these workers, and whether they can be said to be exploited in the same sense as workers who make commodities.

Why do you think that a service isn't a commodity? If somebody cuts my hair, that person is selling the service as a commodity, correct? And if that hair stylist works at a business that pays her a wage, but receives more revenue from customers on the basis of selling haircuts (even after deducting overhead like rent and the cost of equipment like those spinny chairs), where do you think that surplus comes from, if not the commoditized service provided by the stylist? A service is just a commodity that is consumed as it is created.

[ARomanCandle]

Why do you think that a service isn't a commodity? If somebody cuts my hair, that person is selling the service as a commodity, correct? And if that hair stylist works at a business that pays her a wage, but receives more revenue from customers on the basis of selling haircuts (even after deducting overhead like rent and the cost of equipment like those spinny chairs), where do you think that surplus comes from, if not the commoditized service provided by the stylist? A service is just a commodity that is consumed as it is created.

Sorry, I think a distinction should be made between "productive services" and "unproductive services."

In your example, I would agree that the service of providing a hair cut could be argued as an intangible commodity subject to normal LTV rules.

But that is only because the haircut has a use-value and exchange-value like other commodities.

What is the case when we look at unproductive services? E.g., the cashier in my first hypothetical. The cashier is not producing anything with a use-value or exchange-value.

Therefore, I think the hair-stylist and the cashier are performing fundamentally different labor, and I struggle to accept that the cashier is creating any surplus value.

[ARomanCandle]

Double...

[Five Year Plan]

Sorry, I think a distinction should be made between "productive services" and "unproductive services."

In your example, I would agree that the service of providing a hair cut could be argued as an intangible commodity subject to normal LTV rules.

But that is only because the haircut has a use-value and exchange-value like other commodities.

What is the case when we look at unproductive services? E.g., the cashier in my first hypothetical. The cashier is not producing anything with a use-value or exchange-value.

Therefore, I think the hair-stylist and the cashier are performing fundamentally different labor, and I struggle to accept that the cashier is creating any surplus value.

I see what you're asking. I initially responded to the assumption you seemed to make that if the labor theory of valued applied "only to commodities," then it might not apply to services. As you seem to readily admit now, it does.

You now ask about whether a cashier, to take an example, produces surplus value in providing the service of cashiering. The answer is no. The cashier is employed in the circulation sector and does not produce any new value, since the cashier is not adding any additional use value through engaging in a collective process of materially transforming the commodity whose value is being realized by the circulation service.

In the technical sense of producing an expropriated surplus, what this scenario means is that the cashier is not exploited, though the cashier is what might be called "economically oppressed" by virtue of performing labor for a time longer than is required to reconstitute their labor power. This is because said cashier is paid only for the value of his labor power and is therefore a member of the working class, albeit an unproductive one working in circulation rather than production. And the "surplus" appropriated by the circulation firm, after paying the cashier for his labor power is not actually produced by that cashier or any participant in the circulation sector, but is rather produced by the workers in the production sector.

However, only the cashier, not the upper circulation management, is creating the "use value" of the circulation service. So just as in the production sector, there is a global function of capital (performed by those who do not add any use value to the commodity they are selling) and a function of the collective worker (who actually are modifying the use value of the commodity they are selling, in this case the circulation service).

Let me know if this makes sense to you.

[ARomanCandle]

I see what you're asking. I initially responded to the assumption you seemed to make that if the labor theory of valued applied "only to commodities," then it might not apply to services. As you seem to readily admit now, it does.

Yeah, now I'm thinking that my initial services vs commodities dichotomy was nonsense. Productive services seem to be identical to commodities in an abstract sense. The only difference being that one is tangible.



You now ask about whether a cashier, to take an example, produces surplus value in providing the service of cashiering. The answer is no. The cashier is employed in the circulation sector and does not produce any new value, since the cashier is not adding any additional use value through engaging in a collective process of materially transforming the commodity whose value is being realized by the circulation service.

This makes sense.


In the technical sense of producing an expropriated surplus, what this scenario means is that the cashier is not exploited, though the cashier is what might be called "economically oppressed" by virtue of performing labor for a time longer than is required to reconstitute their labor power. This is because said cashier is paid only for the value of his labor power and is therefore a member of the working class, albeit an unproductive one working in circulation rather than production. And the "surplus" appropriated by the circulation firm, after paying the cashier for his labor power is not actually produced by that cashier or any participant in the circulation sector, but is rather produced by the workers in the production sector.

Meaning the cashier is providing more labor than she is getting paid for, in the same way as workers who produce commodities. Does it even make sense to have a theory of exploitation based on the creation of surplus-value? It seems the cashier is exploited in the same sense as a factory worker, just that the source of value is one form of exploitation.


Let me know if this makes sense to you.
Sort of :). Thank you for your help so far.

[Five Year Plan]

Meaning the cashier is providing more labor than she is getting paid for, in the same way as workers who produce commodities. Does it even make sense to have a theory of exploitation based on the creation of surplus-value? It seems the cashier is exploited in the same sense as a factory worker, just that the source of value is one form of exploitation.

When you look at the specific exchange between the circulation manager, and the circulation employee, where a service (of value realization) is being sold by a circulation firm to a production firm, it makes sense to talk about "surplus" being appropriated from the circulation worker, and saying that the circulation worker is exploited.

However, the analytic point that the exploitation/oppression distinction is making is that circulation services have to be looked at from the perspective of capital as a totality, or what Marx would call ‘total social capital.’ From that perspective, circulation services act as a deduction on existing capital by shifting revenues to the circulation sector (which creates a surplus for circulation firms after paying their employees). Values created just to realize an already created value don’t increase the total social capital – they circulate the existing capital.

This can be thought of more clearly if you consider circulation employees working for a company that is also involved in the production sector of the economy. It can hire its own truck drivers to deliver goods to stores in order to be sold by cashiers, but those truck drivers and cashiers act as deductions on the profit to be realized, and the company’s capital, not as surplus creators.


Sort of :). Thank you for your help so far.

You're welcome.

[TheSocialistMetalhead]

I can't say i fully agree with Aufheben.

The labour of the person providing a service is part of the added value of a commodity or 'intangible' commodity and really any product. It has to be factored in. Without the service, the commodity will be worth less.

Just my two cents. I do understand where you're coming from though, I can see the potential contradictions.

[Five Year Plan]

I can't say i fully agree with Aufheben.

The labour of the person providing a service is part of the added value of a commodity or 'intangible' commodity and really any product. It has to be factored in. Without the service, the commodity will be worth less.

Just my two cents. I do understand where you're coming from though, I can see the potential contradictions.

No, a person transporting an already made commodity to a market so it can be sold is not "adding" to the value of the commodity. He is performing a service necessary for that already existing value to be realized. For more on this see Capital Vol. 2.

[ARomanCandle]

This can be thought of more clearly if you consider circulation employees working for a company that is also involved in the production sector of the economy. It can hire its own truck drivers to deliver goods to stores in order to be sold by cashiers, but those truck drivers and cashiers act as deductions on the profit to be realized, and the company’s capital, not as surplus creators.


Hmm. Marx seems to distinguish between circulation costs and transport.

With regard to circulation:


The general law is that all costs of circulation, which arise only from changes in the forms of commodities do not add to their value. They are merely expenses incurred in the realization of the value or in its conversion from one form into another.

Then he immediately goes on to say:


The productive capital invested in [the transport] industry imparts value to the transported products, partly by transferring value from the means of transportation, partly by adding value through the labor performed in transport...it appears as a continuation of a process of production within the process of circulation and for the process of circulation.

I can't post links, but it's section III of Chapter 6 of Capital.

[TheSocialistMetalhead]

No, a person transporting an already made commodity to a market so it can be sold is not "adding" to the value of the commodity. He is performing a service necessary for that already existing value to be realized. For more on this see Capital Vol. 2.

I'm not just referring to people transporting goods. People who provide services like workers at help centers and such, provide a service which has an inherent value to a company, boosting their image (if the company in itself isn't completely dedicated to this service in which case the exploitation is apparent). Therefore, they are being exploited, their employer is benifiting from their labour, however hard it may be to determine how much they contribute to the overall profits.

If we follow your line of reasoning, we would also have to conclude that a salesperson, a cashier, a worker in control of quality control,... doesn't contribute to the end value of a commodity. It may be true that Marx says something to this effect but that doesn't mean I have to agree with him about everything.

Besides, this is really just an intellectual exercise, considering that all workers are exploited, regardless of whether they contributed to the value of a good or not. Driving a truck is also a service which has a value, so it doesn't really matter if that value becomes a part of the value of the commodity or not.

[Five Year Plan]

I'm not just referring to people transporting goods. People who provide services like workers at help centers and such, provide a service which has an inherent value to a company, boosting their image (if the company in itself isn't completely dedicated to this service in which case the exploitation is apparent). Therefore, they are being exploited, their employer is benifiting from their labour, however hard it may be to determine how much they contribute to the overall profits.

The definition of exploitation isn't "provides a service that is useful to a company." It has a definite technical meaning, which shouldn't be mistaken for a moral judgment (e.g., "that worker isn't exploited - he has no reason to complain!")


If we follow your line of reasoning, we would also have to conclude that a salesperson, a cashier, a worker in control of quality control,... don't contribute to the end value of a commodity. It may be true that Marx says something to this effect but that doesn't mean I have to agree with him about everything.

Yes, a cashier ringing up a box of saltines does not add any additional value to the saltines. That's not "following" my line of reasoning. It is my reasoning, and is Marx's reasoning as well. A worker doing quality control is different, since the worker is providing a service involved in the collaborative process of production.


Besides, this is really just an intellectual exercise, considering that all workers are exploited, regardless of whether they contributed to the value of a good or not. Driving a truck is also a service which has a value, so it doesn't really matter if that value becomes a part of the value of the commodity or not.

Understanding how capitalism works is an intellectual exercise.

[Five Year Plan]

Hmm. Marx seems to distinguish between circulation costs and transport.

With regard to circulation:


Then he immediately goes on to say:


I can't post links, but it's section III of Chapter 6 of Capital.

Marx in that section is talking about the need to transport items in order for production to take place, not the transport of commodities once they have been produced.

[TheSocialistMetalhead]

Yes, a cashier ringing up a box of saltines does not add any additional value to the saltines. That's not "following" my line of reasoning. It is my reasoning, and is Marx's reasoning as well. A worker doing quality control is different, since the worker is providing a service involved in the collaborative process of production

If quality control is part of the 'collaborative process of production', how is the service offered by a cashier not?

See, a commodity needs to have a mark-up for selling it to be profitable for the capitalist. When you buy a box of crackers, a supermarket isn't going to charge you what they spent on them plus an arbitrarily determined mark-up (even though a lot of companies still do this regardless), they will also take the costs of running the supermarket (or the chain of supermarkets) into account. These costs include the building, depreciation, electricity, water, the costs of keeping the place clean and yes labour. In other words, the cashier isn't adding to the initial value of the commodity itself but he/she is adding value to the commodity as it is sold at the supermarket. Looking at it this way, the initial commodity and the one for sale at the supermarket are two different things.
Without the cashier (or some sort of electronic system which would of course eliminate the need for labour in this instance), the supermarket would have less costs and could lower its asking price for the saltines (which of course, wouldn't be done in reality).

And what i meant by "intellectual exercise" is that what we were discussing is hardly significant since I'm sure we'll all agree that all workers are exploited.

[ARomanCandle]

Marx in that section is talking about the need to transport items in order for production to take place, not the transport of commodities once they have been produced.
I understand that distintinction, but it doesn't seem to be what Marx is saying:

The transport of products from one productive establishment to another is furthermore followed by the passage of the finished products from the sphere of production to that of consumption. The product is not ready for consumption until it has completed these movements.



And what i meant by "intellectual exercise" is that what we were discussing is hardly significant since I'm sure we'll all agree that all workers are exploited.
I think understanding how the system of capitalism functions is extremely important.

[Five Year Plan]

If quality control is part of the 'collaborative process of production', how is the service offered by a cashier not?

Because quality control is involved in the process of establishing the final material form of the lot of products that is rendered salable. Cashiering is not.


See, a commodity needs to have a mark-up for selling it to be profitable for the capitalist. When you buy a box of crackers, a supermarket isn't going to charge you what they spent on them plus an arbitrarily determined mark-up (even though a lot of companies still do this regardless), they will also take the costs of running the supermarket (or the chain of supermarkets) into account. These costs include the building, depreciation, electricity, water, the costs of keeping the place clean and yes labour. In other words, the cashier isn't adding to the initial value of the commodity itself but he/she is adding value to the commodity as it is sold at the supermarket. Looking at it this way, the initial commodity and the one for sale at the supermarket are two different things.
Without the cashier (or some sort of electronic system which would of course eliminate the need for labour in this instance), the supermarket would have less costs and could lower its asking price for the saltines (which of course, wouldn't be done in reality).Which part of Capital are you applying in this analysis? I ask, because it sounds like your perspective is based on intuitive or common-sense impressions drawn from anecdotal experiences. There's no shame in that. Just don't start interjecting into threads to debate the meaning of those categories from a Marxist perspective without having any idea what you're talking about.

[IWantToLearn]

In other words, the cashier isn't adding to the initial value of the commodity itself but he/she is adding value to the commodity as it is sold at the supermarket. Looking at it this way, the initial commodity and the one for sale at the supermarket are two different things.
Without the cashier (or some sort of electronic system which would of course eliminate the need for labour in this instance), the supermarket would have less costs and could lower its asking price for the saltines (which of course, wouldn't be done in reality).

I guess you are thinking that value and price are the same thing and if im not wrong they are not, you can read more on this by googling "kapitalism101" and look for the "law of value" episode 10. I can't tell you more because i have not seen it past the intro.

[TheSocialistMetalhead]

I think understanding how the system of capitalism functions is extremely important.

It certainly is. However, we are discussing something very specific here. None of this would convince any layman to become a marxist.

Also, simply reading Marx won't give you a full understanding of the system of capitalism despite what some may claim. I rarely here any marxist analyses that only use Marx as a basis anymore.

[TheSocialistMetalhead]

Because quality control is involved in the process of establishing the final material form of the lot of products that is rendered salable. Cashiering is not.

Which part of Capital are you applying in this analysis? I ask, because it sounds like your perspective is based on intuitive or common-sense impressions drawn from anecdotal experiences. There's no shame in that. Just don't start interjecting into threads to debate the meaning of those categories from a Marxist perspective without having any idea what you're talking about.



We can apply what ARomanCandle just mentioned. If transport is essentially a part of the production of a commodity as he demonstrated, the selling of the commodity also is.

My perspective isn't based on 'common-sense impressions', I'm applying my knowledge of basic 'business economics'. If the cost of a cashier is factored into the calculation of 'added value' (this isn't common sense but part of the lingo of an economist), than my view is that she is part of the process of production. I come to this conlusion based on economic realities, not intuition. Surely it isn't wrong to apply different knowledge than just what you learned from Das Kapital. It's not a marxist bible or anything.

I'm not sure, but I don't think Marx actually deals with non-productive businesses in his writings. However, it seems absurd to me to think that he wouldn't have considered the surplus value extracted from employees at a supermarket exploitation.