Service Workers are Proletariat

[Guardia Rossa]

I have recently got in a trench-discussion with a "maoist" that repeatedly declares "Service Sector Workers are not proletariat (Not saying what they are) blablabla a marketing attendant is not proletarian someone who cleans your shoes is not proletarian -job here- is not proletarian blablabla they don't produce nothing blablabla no surplus value blablabla (How their bosses get rich?) blablabla"

So, can someone say me if he is right (Wich I highly doubt) and provide me some panzerfaust-style arguments to crush his annoying trench-egocentrist discussion style? [By this I mean he takes his positions as perfected and attemps to crush mine at any cost. This might end his view of me as inferior because I am still learning and himself as an all-superior God of Marxism that can't have a coherent revolutionary theory with his weirdo disfunctional "maoism"]

And some quotes, he highly values them and I think he has a "Book of Quotes" because he spawns dozens of them straight from his @rse.

Sorry if I am posting crap and/or infringing rules, he is deeply annoying (And disturbing to see marxism in this level of elitism).

EDIT: Sorry for my ever-deteriorating english.

[swims with the fishes]

well friend as a moaist i imagine he is quite the dogmatist. therefore arguments from old major himself will probably be persuasive. so i will throw you a bit of marx's thoughts on unproductive vs productive labour. all these quotes wil be from theories of surplus value.

'The determinate material form of the labour, and therefore of its product, in itself has nothing to do with this distinction between productive and unproductive labour. For example, the cooks and waiters in a public hotel are productive labourers, in so far as their labour is transformed into capital for the proprietor of the hotel. These same persons are unproductive labourers as menial servants, inasmuch as I do not make capital out of their services, but spend revenue on them. In fact, however, these same persons are also for me, the consumer, unproductive labourers in the hotel.'

'The cook in the hotel produces a commodity for the person who as a capitalist has bought her labour—the hotel proprietor; the consumer of the mutton chops has to pay for her labour, and this labour replaces for the hotel proprietor (apart from profit) the fund out of which he continues to pay the cook. On the other hand if I buy the labour of a cook for her to cook meat, etc., for me, not to make use of it as labour in general but to enjoy it, to use it as that particular concrete kind of labour, then her labour is unproductive, in spite of the fact that this labour fixes itself in a material product and could just as well (in its result) be a vendible commodity, as it in fact is for the hotel proprietor. The great difference (the conceptual difference) however remains: the cook does not replace for me (the private person) the fund from which I pay her, because I buy her labour not as a value-creating'

'It follows from what has been said that the designation of labour as productive labour has absolutely nothing to do with the determinate content of the labour, its special utility, or the particular use-value in which it manifests itself.It is the same with enterprises such as theatres, places of entertainment, etc. In such cases the actor’s relation to the public is that of an artist, but in relation to his employer he is a productive labourer.'

[Guardia Rossa]

problem is not saying its productive or not, that breaks one of his arguments and anyone knows you can use completely antagonic argumentation lines to defend your dogmas.

[swims with the fishes]

well what your post is suggesting is that he sees these individuals not as proletarians because 'they don't produce nothing' and dont produce surplus value. so surely if you say they to him they DO produce something even if it is something intangible and they do create surplus value then they are proletarians.

[Art Vandelay]

The notion that service workers are not proletarian is something which can only be spouted by someone who lacks even a rudimentary grasp on the Marxist approach to class analysis. Service workers produce a commodity (the service itself) which is consumed as it is produced and in return recieve a portion of the value they produce (wages), the rest of which is appropriated by their employer (surplus value), ie: they're proletarian.

[Rafiq]

Class is exclusively a matter of one's relationship to property. Which means an NBA star, a nurse and a lawyer (who does not own their own firm) is a proletarian. The question comes from: Does their large source of income derive from their relationship to exploitation, or something else? There are members of the proletarian class who will be less susceptible to join the class struggle in the same vein that there were members of the bourgeoisie who were, by merit of their relation to absolutism, less susceptible to join the revolutionaries in both England and France.

[Comrade Marcel]

"Which means an NBA star, a nurse and a lawyer (who does not own their own firm) is a proletarian."

I really almost spit out my drink here, thanks. ;)

If that's your definition it loses all meaning really.

To answer the OP: Yes, server workers can be proletarian. Most are not.

The proletarian has about 5 characteristics. Of course not all need to be present, but the majority of these should be there:

1.) You are paid below the value of labour
2.) Wage labourer - you don't work you don't eat
3.) No private property / capital is owned or can be accessed
4.) Works with the means of production and do not own it
5.) Works in manufacturing i.e. they actually produce value not just abstract surplus

Almost all 1st world workers are service workers and the many only meet #2 (though a lot of 1st worlders are salaried and have secure work).

Services workers outside of the 1st world might meet #1-3, possibly #4 and could be considered proletarian.

Further the conditions a proletarian lives in are usually absolute shit. If you read Marx and Engels works like Capital and The Condition of the Working Class in England you'll see what I mean.

Proletarians didn't own horses and buggies (cars) or live in big houses, they slept in the corners of basements shared with like 10 others and barely owned the clothing on their back. They didn't have access to capital that they could draw on credit, etc.

Check out Revisiting Value and exploitation: http://llco.org/revisiting-value-and-exploitation/

and "Are first world workers more productive?" http://llco.org/are-first-world-workers-more-productive/

[ckaihatsu]

"Which means an NBA star, a nurse and a lawyer (who does not own their own firm) is a proletarian."

I really almost spit out my drink here, thanks. ;)

If that's your definition it loses all meaning really.

To answer the OP: Yes, server workers can be proletarian. Most are not.

The proletarian has about 5 characteristics. Of course not all need to be present, but the majority of these should be there:

1.) You are paid below the value of labour
2.) Wage labourer - you don't work you don't eat
3.) No private property / capital is owned or can be accessed
4.) Works with the means of production and do not own it
5.) Works in manufacturing i.e. they actually produce value not just abstract surplus

Almost all 1st world workers are service workers and the many only meet #2 (though a lot of 1st worlders are salaried and have secure work).

Services workers outside of the 1st world might meet #1-3, possibly #4 and could be considered proletarian.

Further the conditions a proletarian lives in are usually absolute shit. If you read Marx and Engels works like Capital and The Condition of the Working Class in England you'll see what I mean.

Proletarians didn't own horses and buggies (cars) or live in big houses, they slept in the corners of basements shared with like 10 others and barely owned the clothing on their back. They didn't have access to capital that they could draw on credit, etc.

Check out Revisiting Value and exploitation: http://llco.org/revisiting-value-and-exploitation/

and "Are first world workers more productive?" http://llco.org/are-first-world-workers-more-productive/


More to the point:





The notion that service workers are not proletarian is something which can only be spouted by someone who lacks even a rudimentary grasp on the Marxist approach to class analysis. Service workers produce a commodity (the service itself) which is consumed as it is produced and in return recieve a portion of the value they produce (wages), the rest of which is appropriated by their employer (surplus value), ie: they're proletarian.

[Comrade Marcel]

Sure, services workers produce an abstract commodity not a tangible one. This is the thing about it, often the value dissolves right there and then, i.e. a haircut loses it's value pretty much as soon as you walk out the door.

As I said some service workers are proletarian as there are several characteristics, not just working in manufacture / production.

And yes, surplus is made by service workers but so what? If your definition of a proletarian is just because they create a surplus, well then you agree with Rafiq and even football players are proletarian because they make a surplus for the big league owners, celebrities for Hollywood, lawyers for the firm, etc.

If that is the case, we simply disagree and further I don't see how you can find such a superficial definition in anything Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc. ever wrote!

[ckaihatsu]

Sure, services workers produce an abstract commodity not a tangible one.


'Abstract' -- ?

What's 'abstract' about a bus or train driver who provides public transportation to hundreds and thousands of people every day -- ?





This is the thing about it, often the value dissolves right there and then, i.e. a haircut loses it's value pretty much as soon as you walk out the door.


This is absolutely non-material -- what would people do *without* haircuts -- ?? Just pretend that going *without* a haircut is the same as *having* a haircut -- ?

So despite the fact that customers are paying *revenue* for haircuts, and that haircutting labor is being *exploited*, for a wage, with the surplus value going to *ownership*, you're *still* going to insist that services are somehow not commodity-production -- ? -- !





As I said some service workers are proletarian as there are several characteristics, not just working in manufacture / production.


I don't know *where* this bullshit comes from, but there is obviously some portion of the left -- probably Maoist / TWist -- that incorrectly differentiates between blue-collar, and white-collar / pink-collar types of work, despite the fact that *all* of them are exploited, and thus are proletarian.





And yes, surplus is made by service workers but so what? If your definition of a proletarian is just because they create a surplus, well then you agree with Rafiq and even football players are proletarian because they make a surplus for the big league owners, celebrities for Hollywood, lawyers for the firm, etc.


What is this, *kindergarten* -- ?

You're playing *playground politics* over the objective issue of what is proletarian, and what is not, as if 'guilt-by-association' has any bearing here.

Yes, the definition of 'proletarian' is that they're exploited by ownership -- by team owners, movie studios, legal firms, whatever.

You're being disingenuous by deliberately emphasizing some non-typical cases, those proletarians who happen to receive much public attention as performers, with atypical, disproportionate placements in the economy. And you're trying to capsize and sink *all* service workers on this disingenuous premise.





If that is the case, we simply disagree and further I don't see how you can find such a superficial definition in anything Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc. ever wrote!


'Superficial'. Really.

You just conceded that:





And yes, surplus is made by service workers [...]

[Hatshepsut]

"Which means an NBA star, a nurse and a lawyer (who does not own their own firm) is a proletarian." I really almost spit out my drink here, thanks...

It's true Marx (Das Kapital, Vol. 1) characterized the proletarian as dependent for survival upon selling their labor power. The conversion of labor power into exchange value and thence into capital then looms large in the description. Up to here we all agree. Yet NBA stars or lawyers may indeed be proletarian, if a capitalist converts part of their labor power into capital while they have not become bourgeois themselves. We haven’t said that all such persons belong to the proletariat; I would imagine these folks tend to leave that class once they’ve accumulated enough money. That takes some time to do. Therefore, an NBA player will have to begin as a proletarian; his ability to earn is entirely dependent on the team's willingness to pay him.


Check out...

Are first world workers more productive?
http://llco.org/are-first-world-workers-more-productive/

All revolutionary leftists are concerned with global exploitation. Yet in general, first-world workers are more productive than their developing world counterparts. Productivity is measured by the socially necessary labor time that enters into making a commodity unit. Leading Light claims, for instance, that use of tractors in plowing is not socially necessary in India and that the value of tractors in the USA is “dead labor,” that is, not accounted for in measuring productivity.

Yet in a global economy, failure to use tractors in India should be considered pathological. The labor value inherent in the tractors was measured in the farm’s equation of capital C = c + v, where the tractors are part of c. (Vol. 1, Chap. 9) This equation is microeconomic, applying only to the farm. The tractor-maker will have its own copy of the same equation where surplus value extracted from labor and capitalized is v and the welding equipment is part of c. It also has its own MCM’ cycle where the capital generated can be up to M’ — M. (Don’t confuse the commodity, C, with the capital, C, that unfortunately uses the same letter.) So the labor in the tractors isn’t dead.

We should remember that Marx believed capitalism progressive relative to feudalism. India’s social state results from a mix of factors—colonial legacies to the (unconscious) class interests of India’s higher castes—and as such is hardly the fault of Indian workers. It still represents a pathology extant in a global capitalism which seems uninterested in making production more efficient until the requisite profits are guaranteed. Wherever India’s land is flat enough, use of tractors is a potentially available technical standard in means of production, thus satisfying Marx’s definition for social necessity. Marx never excused failure to employ resources although governments and capitalists may perversely fail to employ them.

Indeed we now see precisely where exploitation occurs and why: Indian workers producing for export to the USA use first-world equipment which the American buyers finance, permitting those buyers to get first-world productivity for Indian wages. Because most farm food is consumed in India, however, no tractors to raise productivity in this sector are forthcoming. Without the pathologies, Indian productivity in domestic markets would rise and so would Indian wages.

[Comrade V]

Fast food workers are some of the most exploited workers I've met.

They have universally low pay, shit benefits, flux hours/schedules, and are treated as entirely expendable by their employers. The majority of them also dislike their jobs and are only working there to put food on the table. Mostly Wage Slaves and by definition Proletariat.

[ckaihatsu]

So the labor in the tractors isn’t dead.


On this I don't see why the tractors, or any other means of production / technology *wouldn't* be dead labor.

Don't make me post a &%[email protected]#% diagram, 'cause I *will*...!


= )

[Ocean Seal]

This is beyond ridiculous. They produce a service which is something that people want, much like other workers produce a good which people want. It doesn't matter that the service is immediately consumed. They are both useful, produced under capitalism, etc.

[Hatshepsut]

Don't make me post a &%[email protected]#% diagram, 'cause I *will*...!

That might be OK. You've had some interesting charts.

Marx discusses the relationship between technology and socially necessary labor in the very first chapter of Das Kapital. There he says that when power looms double the speed of weaving, the value of labor done on hand looms drops by half.

He uses the term "dead labor" only three times in Vol. I, where it's a synonym for capital (Chap. 10). Dead labor is basically labor done in the past. Perhaps I should have said that for the owners of the tractor plant, the tractors do not represent dead labor; they are the commodity being sold. I apologize for my lack of clarity. :)

Yet in a world that no longer attaches exchange value to commodities, no labor of any kind should "die" in that manner even though tools presumably still exist. What baffles me is that tools made on a farm by the farmworkers would be treated differently than tools made elsewhere when productivity and socially necessary labor (instead of capital formation) is concerned. A tractor is, after all, a tool despite the tech involved.

[BIXX]

Don't make me post a &%[email protected]#% diagram, 'cause I *will*...!

Fuck.

[ckaihatsu]

Fuck.


Yeah, plus the weekend's coming up, so who knows *what* the hell is gonna happen -- crazy, crazy shit....

Diagrams.

[Luís Henrique]

What is "service", for starters? I doubt your Maoist acquaintance has a firm grasp of it.

You can ask him as well what is "production", or what are "social classes". I doubt he understands those concepts, or at least that he understands them from an actually Marxist standpoint.

For intance: is a teacher a service worker? In this case, he will probably like to explain this:


If we may take an example from outside the sphere of production of material objects, a schoolmaster is a productive labourer when, in addition to belabouring the heads of his scholars, he works like a horse to enrich the school proprietor. That the latter has laid out his capital in a teaching factory, instead of in a sausage factory, does not alter the relation.

We will notice that Marx makes the distinction not between "production" and "services", but between "productive" and "unproductive:


In order to simplify the matter (since we shall not discuss the merchant as a capitalist and merchant’s capital until later) we shall assume that this buying and selling agent is a man who sells his labour. He expends his labour-power and labour-time in the operations C — M and M — C. And he makes his living that way, just as another does by spinning or making pills. He performs a necessary function, because the process of reproduction itself includes unproductive functions. He works as well as the next man, but intrinsically his labour creates neither value nor product. He belongs himself to the faux frais of production. His usefulness does not consist in transforming an unproductive function into a productive one, nor unproductive into productive labour. It would be a miracle if such transformation could be accomplished by the mere transfer of a function. His usefulness consists rather in the fact that a smaller part of society’s labour-power and labour-time is tied up in this unproductive function. More. We shall assume that he is a mere wage-labourer, even one of the better paid, for all the difference it makes. Whatever his pay, as a wage-labourer he works part of his time for nothing. He may receive daily the value of the product of eight working-hours, yet functions ten. But the two hours of surplus-labour he performs do not produce value anymore than his eight hours of necessary labour, although by means of the latter a part of the social product is transferred to him

I fear that your friend is doing this:


there is a strong tendency within the left, influenced by general bourgeois ideology, to make the equations, productive=good and unproductive=bad. This gives origin to "producerism", which is an ideology that distinguishes "good" productive capital from "bad" (and probably "Jewish") unproductive capital, arguing for an alliance with the former against the latter.

Such a position is consistent with the Christianish interpretation of Marxism by Maoists, according to which the revolutionary class is a suffering class, combined with the strange notion that only exploitation causes suffering, plus an excessively narrow understanding of what constitutes exploitation. But it is "Marxist" only in the sence that it misuses Marxist terminology; it is actually a pastiche.

***************************

This results, or is correlated, to a superstructuralist understanding of what social classes are. According to this strange brand of Marxism, a teacher who changes jobs, from a private school to a public one is changing social classes, going up from the proletariat to the petty-bourgeosie, even though neither his technical nor his social conditions change - he continues to do the exact same thing, to earn the same amount of money, to circulate among the same social environments as previously.

Of course, the necessary condition to hold such positions is to have only a theoretical knowledge about the proletariat; anyone who lives or has lived in a proletarian neighborhood knows pretty well that janitors become welders, that truck drivers marry hairdressers, that the son of a carpenter may become a teacher. To assume that these changes and relations imply different social classes is to assume that social classes are actually meaningless, having absolutely no impact on the behaviour of people. It is to deal, in fact, with mere "juridical classes", defined only by juridical relations to the means of production, instead of actual social classes, defined by the social conditions of existence of their members.

In other words, I think your friend may have learnt a few (or a many) quotes by heart, but I don't think he understands them properly; he is at best a scholastic, a bookish erudite, with no real experience or grasp of class struggle.

Luís Henrique