LT of V, Cashiers, and Prole-Cred

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I've heard of arguments that cashiers, and those involved in the service industry, particularly the North American service industry, are not proletarian. However, I still have yet to hear coherently explained why.
First, in terms of generating surplus value for the benefit of the owner of a given means of production, those involved in the service industry obviously do (or else they wouldn't be hired in the first place). After all, until every cash is automated, the owner of a store requires a check-out attendant to run things through - and the action of the employee (be it scanning and bagging, taking orders, or otherwise) adds value to the product in the same way a trucker adds value to a product ('cause lumber isn't worth much sitting in the yard).
Some have suggested that this work is unnecessary - in a sense, I agree, but this represents an idealist approach to work. The market defines it as necessary in the same way it defines the employees of a meat-packing plant as necessary. Certainly, I disagree - but I'm not going to deny that said employees are proletarian based on such flimsy, un-materialist, grounds.

So, I'm sure there's a MIMist or two around with a few cents to throw in, among others, so . . . let's go!

[Decolonize The Left]

Labeling folks "proletarian" and "bourgeoise" is worthless. It only segregates people who might very well be sympathetic to the cause.

The whole industry which revolves around money (bakers, stock traders, insurance salesmen, etc...) will be obsolete after a revolution. They will work with the rest to produce goods for everyone in an anarchist society.

Does that touch on it?

-- August

[Guest1]

Umm...

It is necessary to divide people, because whether they admit it or not, they are divided. Sections of the petty-bourgeoisie may well join in a revolution, but the basis of that revolution is the divisions in society.

[coda]

Those shitty, low paying, no benefits, service industry jobs is about as proletariat as you get in North America.

[Severian]

"Proletarian" is not the same as "generate value".

A proletarian is someone who lives by selling their labor-power, working for wages. Clearly service-sector people qualify.

But no, service-sector people don't add value to the commodity. I'm not sure that transportation does either. Value is created during the production process, and other sectors of the economy obtain a part of that value.

Incidentally, working farmers, who are not wage-workers/proletarians, do create value by their agricultural labor. Similarly, toilers in other stages of history/modes of production created value without being proletarians.

[romanm]

The first post in this thread confuses several things. People in the severice industry can be exploited, but they do not create value according to Marx (as Severian also pointed out). There is another question about whether or not amerikans in the service sector or those engaged in value creating sectors are exploited. We contend that they are not, that they are being paid more than the value of their labor. And, there are several ways that MIM and IRTR has approached the calculation. If someone wants to prove us wrong that is fine. But, to do so, they would have to provide their own calculations and show why our's our wrong. And, the question as to whether amerikan workers are exploited or exploiter is obviously very important - are they friends or enemies of the international proletariat? Are they a revolutionary class? Are they a proletariat?

The reason that the growth of the service industry is so important to look at is that it is an indication of the general level of parasiticism in the u$. And, despite popular claims, the growth in this sector does not correspond to an over all decline in wages or standard of living. I would contend that a situation like this is only possible because of the super-exploitation going on in the 3rd world.

As, I said in another thread, Marx described the proletariat as those who have nothing to lose but their chains, how many amerikans does this really describe? There is obviously something wrong with a vulgar analysis that places an amerikan sportsstar or wage earner who makes 100,000$ a year as closer to being proletarian than an Indian rickshaw puller who may own his own rickshaw.

In any case, there are several active threads on these exact topics in our forum. If people want to prove us wrong, they are welcome there. I see no reason to have this debate again. I would essentially just be cross posting information that is already available. We have an entire economics forum which is focused on almost nothing but these questions. Also, we even allow Trotskyists to come to our economics forum. Although we do request that Trotskyists limit their participation to just the economics forum. Certain questions should be addressed before others.

[Led Zeppelin]

But no, service-sector people don't add value to the commodity.

Service-sector people work for wages don't they?

[romanm]

Those shitty, low paying, no benefits, service industry jobs is about as proletariat as you get in North America.

I disagree. There is a genuine proletariat in North America composed of (usually) undocumented workers. Besides undocumented workers, the closest thing to a proletariat in amerika are prisoners and what the Panthers refered to as the lumpen.

[coda]

<<I disagree. There is a genuine proletariat in North America composed of (usually) undocumented workers. Besides undocumented workers, the closest thing to a proletariat in amerika are prisoners and what the Panthers refered to as the lumpen.>>

Referring to industry-type jobs; migrant workers, outdoor laborers, food service workers along with all unskilled service type jobs, etc. fall at the highest wrung of exploitation. Indeed, there are whole groups of people --- undocumented workers, minorities, undereducated workers, prisoners, if you must, that are exploited and discriminated against as a whole.

I have a broader definition of proletariat -- anyone working in substandard conditions, with substandard wages, without recourse, struggling against the COL to meet basic needs-- I&#39;ve observed in my 20+ years of working that that is a large portion of the North American populace with more and more falling into that quota every day.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

a.
I certainly disagree with the assertian that the service-industry is as proletarian as one can get in North America. Hell, I don&#39;t think there&#39;s some sort of scale of proletarian-ness - I think it&#39;s a question of either "is" or "isn&#39;t". That said, there are innumerable factories, countless factory farms, etc. all across North America - they just tend to be hidden away from the normal experience of middle-class white people.

b.
But no, service-sector people don&#39;t add value to the commodity. I&#39;m not sure that transportation does either. Value is created during the production process, and other sectors of the economy obtain a part of that value.

I think you&#39;re defining production too narrowly - and according to what criteria? That is, how do we "know" the difference between which activities that are productive, and which economic sectors simply "obtain"? Certainly, there exists an agricultural proletariat who, in many instances, simply move things about - but even romanm, it seems, would consider them proletarian. I mean to say, I think, isn&#39;t the critirea not what is done, but the relationships in which it is done?

c.
We contend that they are not, that they are being paid more than the value of their labor. And, there are several ways that MIM and IRTR has approached the calculation. If someone wants to prove us wrong that is fine. But, to do so, they would have to provide their own calculations and show why our&#39;s our wrong.

I don&#39;t think the calculation necessarily has to be proved wrong, so much as its particular relevence questioned.
That said, before I reply at length, I would appreciate it if you posted either the calculations, or a link to them. In addition, if you could answer, simply, how, on a dollar-to-dollar basis, my boss isn&#39;t going out of business if I&#39;m not bringing home less exchange-value than I create, I&#39;d really appreciate it.


And, the question as to whether amerikan workers are exploited or exploiter is obviously very important - are they friends or enemies of the international proletariat? Are they a revolutionary class? Are they a proletariat?

Either way, is this not a temporary situation? That is, with the defeat of imperialism abroad, musn&#39;t the American proletariat come into existence, or, at least, become conscious of itself and its condition? Or do you believe that they are a completely different class which will persist?

d.
As, I said in another thread, Marx described the proletariat as those who have nothing to lose but their chains . . .

Rhetorical and subjective, rather than dealing with any particular reality.

e.
There is obviously something wrong with a vulgar analysis that places an amerikan sportsstar or wage earner who makes 100,000&#036; a year as closer to being proletarian than an Indian rickshaw puller who may own his own rickshaw.

An analysis of imperialism, however, does not necessarily also uproot the standard, if "localized" understanding of class realtionships, does it?

[coda]

<<I certainly disagree with the assertian that the service-industry is as proletarian as one can get in North America. Hell, I don&#39;t think there&#39;s some sort of scale of proletarian-ness - I think it&#39;s a question of either "is" or "isn&#39;t".>>>

They "is"

when theory departs from current material reality it is best to discard it.

There is a scale based on working conditions vs. wages to the ratio of COL. So, the white-collar service wage industries which you are speaking of, cashiers, food-service, etc. are indeed as proletarian as one can get in North America, yes along with others. They are unskilled, low paying, generally part time jobs, with no health benefits, sick days, vacation time, breaks. etc -- easily replaceable-- It keeps people in the strasophere of the working class poor-- they will always stay there unless they can 1) improve their education or skills or specialization by degree, which ups their labor worth. That is what it&#39;s based on now, not how much their physical manual labor value is worth or even the itemized value of what they produce in hard currency for the bosses. The unskilled wage worker is considered overhead, just like the machinery of production.

[coda]

LTV--- a person&#39;s Labor Value is abstract, but rather set by within a range by the competive job market. The labor value of product, including abstract and real use-value, including overhead, including any labor means of distribution, determines price value, profit margin and wage.

[NovelGentry]

But no, service-sector people don&#39;t add value to the commodity. I&#39;m not sure that transportation does either. Value is created during the production process, and other sectors of the economy obtain a part of that value.

Of course they add value to the commodity, the commodities value is always the total labor time invested in the production of that product and distribution (essentially what transportation is) is essential to production, you cannot have production without distribution, period. And yes, the relative portion of labor in the truck used to ship it is too additional value in the commodity.

There are, of course, services which do not add value to a commodity, but are a commodity in themselves.

If you accept the concept that some labor does not contain value, you undermine the LToV at it&#39;s root because at it&#39;s root it says value is labor, always. The value of any good, service, product, commodity, whatever you wish, is and always will be as Smith put it, "The real price of everything, what everything is really worth to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it." If your sole task is to walk around a department store and pick up clothes for people, if you deliver pizza, essentially no matter what you do, your job is always a function of saving people the "toil and trouble" involved in acquiring that good or service.

This is the source of value in the economics of Smith all the way through Marx.

[NovelGentry]

There is obviously something wrong with a vulgar analysis that places an amerikan sportsstar or wage earner who makes 100,000&#036; a year as closer to being proletarian than an Indian rickshaw puller who may own his own rickshaw.

The vulgar analysis comes from a vulgar system where price and value are assumed to be intrinsically inseperable. You seem to be making the same assumption. It may be the case that sports stars and actors and things of that nature are indeed getting more than the value of their labor in terms of relative price, however when you throw "wage earner" who makes &#036;100,000 a year you lose any credibility, as you say nothing to the actual value of what they do and it&#39;s relativity to price/costs.

The labor theory of value is often reduced to the concept that if the employer is making more for the labor of the employee than they are paying out (i.e. acquiring surplus value, manifested in the form of profit), they are being exploited and thus are proletarians. This is true, but abstractly so -- explaining it properly would require a very in depth examination of the entire economic system.

Let me, however, add, that in the event the exploitation proves true, which it very well can for a "wage earner" (a generalization hardly worthy of being accepted for the argument you&#39;re trying to make) making &#036;100,000 a year, they are closer to being proletarian than an Indian rickshaw puller who owns his own rickshaw.

If you don&#39;t understand why, then I don&#39;t think you understand what makes a proletarian a proletarian.

[workersunity]

theres a thread on it called white collar workers if you are interested in some answers

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

BUMP.

Curious to read a response to Novel Gentry (who, thus far, I most agree with).

[JC1]

Here&#39;s the way I see it. Service worker&#39;s serve a two fold purpose.

1) realize value

2) Produce a service (Commodity) in witch the product being sold is part of the constant capital when divying up the value.

[cormacobear]

If the labour you sell is standing for hours counting their money and you&#39;re not paid by percentage. Your a Prol.

If you own the means of distribution ( How was Marx to know that transport was as valuable as production) you&#39;re a lord .

it&#39;s all much clearer if we give the new lords their ancient titles plus it sets back their propoghanda campaign a thousand years.

the bourgiosie represent the middle class. which is the standard we should all enjoy. but the Bourgoisie wants to be a lord and the majority wish for middle class. ( our right as human beings)

You don&#39;t need to be ... have to go i&#39;ll explain hummanity and its local solutions when I get back home next week

[NovelGentry]

How was Marx to know that transport was as valuable as production

Is that supposed to be a joke? Are you trying to imply transportation didn&#39;t exist in Marx&#39;s day?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 03:50 PM
Let me, however, add, that in the event the exploitation proves true, which it very well can for a "wage earner" (a generalization hardly worthy of being accepted for the argument you&#39;re trying to make) making &#036;100,000 a year,
That seems improbable to me. I seriously doubt anyone&#39;s labor produces that much. Their employer may easily gain more by employing them, but that&#39;s not the same thing. (There are a lot of ways a capitalist can make a profit besides actually producing something.)

But regardless. Obviously this person is getting paid more than the value of their labor-power - that is, the amount needed to live on, and produce the next generation of workers. So, not a proletarian. Selling something more than just their labor-power.

What else are they selling? I&#39;ll throw out a couple possibilities.

One, a surcharge for a scarcity/monopoly of a particular type of labor. There&#39;s an artificially maintained scarcity of licensed doctors, for example, which helps them jack up their price. One could arguably apply this to exceptionally skilled sports players (Romanm&#39;s example) or what have you.

Two, they&#39;re getting paid for part of the labor-power of all the people who tried to become pro athletes or whatever, put in a lot of unpaid or underpaid labor trying to make it, and failed.

I should admit I got that by analogy to application of the labor theory of value to gold prospecting....as explained by a character in "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre." (The successful gold prospectors get a high price for the gold &#39;cause they&#39;re getting paid for the labor-power of all the people who didn&#39;t find any gold, too.)

(Now you know why they had to have a McCarthyite witch-hunt in Hollywood, too. )

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

So Severian, machine operators who work in coal mines in the US and make &#036;100,000 a year aren&#39;t proletarians??

Do you have any idea how much coal they dig out, even in one day?

On Cashiers, etc. they are proletariat for the following reasons:

1. They have nothing to sell but their labor-power
2. Their relationship to the means of production

Marx talked extensively about the role of workers in "circulating" in Volume 2 of Capital.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Here you go, courtesy of Communist League in another post:


"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 element but purely for the sake of its use-value. Her labour as little replaces for me the fund with which I pay for it, that is, her wages, as, for example, the dinner I eat in the hotel in itself enables me to buy and eat the same dinner again a second time. This distinction however is also to be found between commodities. The commodity which the capitalist buys to replace his constant capital (for example, cotton material, if he is a cotton printer) replaces its value in the printed cotton. But if on the other hand he buys it in order to consume the cotton itself, then the commodity does not replace his outlay....

"On the other hand: an entrepreneur of theatres, concerts, brothels, etc., buys the temporary disposal over the labour-power of the actors, musicians, prostitutes, etc. — in fact in a roundabout way that is only of formal economic interest; in its result the process is the same — he buys this so-called &#39;unproductive labour&#39;, whose &#39;services perish in the very instant of their performance&#39; and do not fix or realise themselves &#39;any permanent&#39; (&#39;particular&#39; is also used) &#39;subject or vendible commodity&#39; (apart from themselves). The sale of these to the public provides him with wages and profit. And these services which he has thus bought enable him to buy them again; that is to say, they themselves renew the fund from which they are paid for. The same is true for example of the labour of clerks employed by a lawyer in his office — except for the fact that these services as a rule also embody themselves in very bulky &#39;particular subjects&#39; in the form of immense bundles of documents.

"It is true that these services are paid for to the entrepreneur out of the revenue of the public. But it is no less true that this holds good of all products in so far as they enter into individual consumption. It is true that the country cannot export these services as such; but it can export those who perform the services. Thus France exports dancing masters, cooks, etc., and Germany schoolmasters. With the export of the dancing master, or the schoolmaster, however, his revenue is also exported, while the export of dancing shoes and books brings a return to the country.

"If therefore on the one hand a part of the so-called unproductive labour embodies itself in material use-values which might just as well be commodities (vendible commodities), so on the other hand a part of the services in the strict sense which assume no objective form — which do not receive an existence as things separate from those performing the services, and do not enter into a commodity as a component part of its value — may be bought with capital (by the immediate purchaser of the labour), may replace their own wages and yield a profit for him. In short, the production of these services can be in part subsumed under capital, just as a part of the labour which embodies itself in useful things is bought directly by revenue and is not subsumed under capitalist production."

(K. Marx, "Adam Smith’s Second Explanation: the View of Productive Labour as Labour Which Is Realised in a Commodity", Ch. 4, Theories of Surplus-Value -- http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...-value/ch04.htm )

[NovelGentry]

Obviously this person is getting paid more than the value of their labor-power - that is, the amount needed to live on, and produce the next generation of workers. So, not a proletarian. Selling something more than just their labor-power.

But surplus value is derived from labor (manifested) over labor (acted). The end result of their labor is their product/service, the value of which is determined by the amount of labor in it, while their labor is constant with the productive forces of the time. If their labor produces a product of higher value than the value of their labor, they are exploited -- such is the case. It has nothing to do with whether or not they are getting paid more than the value of their labor, and everything to do with the value of the product of their labor. They could be paid &#036;500,000 a year, obviously more than the value of their labor, given the cost of sustaining their existence, but that tells you nothing about whether or not they produce surplus value, you must examine the value of their labor with regard to the product or manifestation of that labor, which if it was not more than &#036;500,000 a year, no profit would exist.


One, a surcharge for a scarcity/monopoly of a particular type of labor. There&#39;s an artificially maintained scarcity of licensed doctors, for example, which helps them jack up their price. One could arguably apply this to exceptionally skilled sports players (Romanm&#39;s example) or what have you.

Two, they&#39;re getting paid for part of the labor-power of all the people who tried to become pro athletes or whatever, put in a lot of unpaid or underpaid labor trying to make it, and failed.

These things may be true, and would certainly account for why their wage is not equal to the value of their labor, but again it says nothing about the value of what their labor has produced in relation to it.

EDITED: I edited this for clarity, as my initial use of the term labor was to mean labor manifested. It&#39;s a clarfication I certainly recognized I should make because we&#39;re reading the Poverty of Philosophy in the RA study group. The overall point remains the same, but the clarification makes it a bit better if you&#39;re familiar with Marx&#39;s terms.

[NovelGentry]

After I walked away from that last post I was thinking about what you said Severian, and I&#39;ve come to wonder if this is the core misunderstanding of most Leninists and why they believe only the poor can be proletariat.

If I&#39;m correct in my understanding of what you said, surplus-value is derived when the wage of the worker is less than the value of their labor, i.e. less than what it would cost to sustain their own life. This doesn&#39;t make much sense, as if they don&#39;t have enough to sustain their own life, they would be dead. Certainly you can bring credit and things of that nature into the reason why they survive with this condition, and certainly some may, but you&#39;ve totally distorted the idea of where surplus-value is derived from, and it becomes no doubt why so many Leninists believe that proletarian == poor. It&#39;s just not the same thing.

(Value of commodity > value of labor) &#33;= (Wage > value of labor)

EDITED: Also edited for clarity. Major reason I used labor-power was because you used it, but to clarify things even more. Labor power has no value in particular, as it is not necessarily actualized. It&#39;s really just potential. Labor is the actualization of labor power, while the commodity is the actualization of labor or labor manifested.

I think you meant to say labor when you said labor power.

[rioters bloc]

i&#39;m a cashier

in fact, i&#39;m at work now ;)

i&#39;m sure the salespeople could manage without me if they learnt how to use the [fairly simple] pos system. am i a member of the proletariat? i dont know. but i get paid minimum wage and i&#39;m grateful for this job since it means i can buy food and pay for travel when its too wet to ride my bike.

the way i see it though is that this store is pretty busy, and if salespeople were also doing my job then they&#39;d need to hire more salespeople anyway to cater for consumers. so either way, more value is being added to the products. and salespeople here get commission, too.

depends on what kinda store it is though.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

depends on what kinda store it is though

How/why?

Did you read my last post?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 08:43 PM
So Severian, machine operators who work in coal mines in the US and make &#036;100,000 a year aren&#39;t proletarians??

Do you have any idea how much coal they dig out, even in one day?
Coal miners make &#036;100,000 a year? I think that&#39;d take a LOT of overtime. And they wouldn&#39;t take home nearly that much....(taxes are part of surplus-value).

Never actually asked any miners exactly how much they make....OK, the BLS says 36,000 or 42,000 mean annual income (http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_212100.htm) for continuous or other mining machine operators. That&#39;s pre-tax again, of course.

I was thinking of sports stars, which Romanm mentioned in the first post about this sub-subject, as a likely candidate for explanation 2. Guess they&#39;d make more than &#036;100,000 a year in many cases. Pop stars would be another good candidate.

I also used the example of doctors, where my first explanation definitely applies. Airline pilots would be another example, there.

I might comment that MiM&#39;s "earning too much" political line is wrong even in regard to high-salaried professionals who are not workers. Airline workers, for example, correctly support the strikes of airline pilots, and ask for support in return. Any other course would be suicidal.

***

NovelGentry, I don&#39;t think you understood me at all.

I wasn&#39;t posting about surplus-value, which has nothing to do with whether someone&#39;s a proletarian. I mentioned that I doubt anyone produces that much...maybe I was totally wrong about that. But that first paragraph was just an aside. Then I said "but regardless," and examined the actual issues in determining if someone&#39;s a proletarian.

As I explained in my post of Oct 4 2005, 03:25 AM, working farmers and other exploited producers who aren&#39;t proletarians can produce surplus-value, and service workers who don&#39;t produce any kind of value are proletarians.

A proletarian is someone who lives by selling their labor-power for wages. Wages are roughly equivalent to the value of labor-power. As with any commodity, the value of labor-power is determined by what goes into producing it - in this case, the amount it takes to live on, continue working, and generate the next generation of workers.

What is considered enough to live on is socially determined, including through the workers&#39; struggles. But if someone is clearly making far more than the value of their labor-power...then you gotta ask whether they have something to sell besides their labor-power.

[NovelGentry]

I wasn&#39;t posting about surplus-value, which has nothing to do with whether someone&#39;s a proletarian. I mentioned that I doubt anyone produces that much...maybe I was totally wrong about that. But that first paragraph was just an aside. Then I said "but regardless," and examined the actual issues in determining if someone&#39;s a proletarian.

You said, "but regardless, obviously this person is getting paid mor than the value of their labor-power." If you&#39;re not attempting to examine surplus-value, what is it you&#39;re attempgint to examine? The meaningless determination of whether or not they are paid more than is necessary to survive? This happens in many cases, and it&#39;s recognized throughout Marxist economic theory (as well as Ricardos) -- the point has always been that over time it pushes towards this. Truth is, it fluctuates quite a bit, as it probably should be doing right now.


As I explained in my post of Oct 4 2005, 03:25 AM, working farmers and other exploited producers who aren&#39;t proletarians can produce surplus-value, and service workers who don&#39;t produce any kind of value are proletarians.

But service workers do produce value -- we&#39;ve already shown that. And in what position are you to be exploited if you&#39;re not a proletarian?


A proletarian is someone who lives by selling their labor-power for wages.

Agreed.


Wages are roughly equivalent to the value of labor-power.

Agreed/Disagreed. There is some confusion here. Originally I used the term as you&#39;re using it here, I revised my earlier posts to reflect a distinction which only lends itself to more confusion because Marx differentiates the two and yet speaks of them frequently as the same. Let&#39;s be clear then if we are to agree to use the value of labor-power to say it is the cost of sustaining the worker, what are we to use for the value of labor? Marx seems to attribute the same to the value of labor, yet he makes a distinction between labor and labor power.


As with any commodity, the value of labor-power is determined by what goes into producing it

That&#39;s rather vague -- the value of a commodity is determined by the amount of labor which goes into it, not the simple "what." As Ricardo proved things like rent have no overall effect on value.


What is considered enough to live on is socially determined

To an extent yes.


But if someone is clearly making far more than the value of their labor-power...then you gotta ask whether they have something to sell besides their labor-power.

I&#39;ll get back to this, I have to go fulfill my proletarian duty.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 12:27 PM
what are we to use for the value of labor?
IIRC Marx says the "value of labor" is a meaningless phrase. Seeing as how labor is the measure of value.

What Romanm means by it, who knows. Certainly he avoids like the plague any real examination of production per worker-hour.

***

Some people considered "service-sector workers" produce value, some don&#39;t. I won&#39;t pretend I understand where to drawn the line in all cases, thought the Marx quotes Miles has been posting are certainly educational.

My point was, those who don&#39;t can still be proletarians. For example, domestic servants, who Marx seems to be saying don&#39;t produce value or surplus-value - and that makes a certain obvious sense. Yet clearly they&#39;re proletarians, who live by selling their labor-power, and often pretty cheaply.


And in what position are you to be exploited if you&#39;re not a proletarian?
What? Do you really mean to say you think proletarians are the only exploited class?

[NovelGentry]

IIRC Marx says the "value of labor" is a meaningless phrase. Seeing as how labor is the measure of value.

What Romanm means by it, who knows. Certainly he avoids like the plague any real examination of production per worker-hour.

Well I was doing some thinking, and technically I would say they would naturally be equivalent. Value of labor power the "potential" of labor if you will would naturally be equal with the labor itself, again, just one is actualized the other is not. So I guess no distinction must be made.

From Poverty of Philosophy (which we are reading in the RA study group) - "If the relative value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labor required to produce it, it naturally follows that the relative value of labor, or wages, must be equally determined by the quantity of labor which is necessary to produce the wages. ... is then determined by the labor-time which is necessary to produce all that is required for the subsistence of the worker."

It seems both would be fairly interchangeable, however the distinction can still be made between the two in other aspects -- for example, the fact that the proletarian sells his labor power, as opposed to selling their labor.


Some people considered "service-sector workers" produce value, some don&#39;t.

If we go back to Smith, which really is the root of the theory he defines the value of any good as I have noted before as the toil and trouble of acquiring it... certainly, this would then hold true that services involved with goods hold value. I don&#39;t know if you wouldn&#39;t necessarily be so bold to say the same as services which are goods... but I don&#39;t see why that would change.


My point was, those who don&#39;t can still be proletarians. For example, domestic servants, who Marx seems to be saying don&#39;t produce value or surplus-value - and that makes a certain obvious sense. Yet clearly they&#39;re proletarians, who live by selling their labor-power, and often pretty cheaply.

Indeed, I understand the concept of selling labor power as really being the defining factor. What confused me is when you were talking about getting paid more than the value of their labor -- it seemed like you were trying to examine surplus-value.


What? Do you really mean to say you think proletarians are the only exploited class?

No. There&#39; were lots of exploited classes, and some in some places which still are. I mean to say the proletariat is the only exploited class of an advanced capitalist nation. Peasants are very well exploited, but capitalism does away with the peasantry.

[NovelGentry]

But if someone is clearly making far more than the value of their labor-power...then you gotta ask whether they have something to sell besides their labor-power.

To return to this for a minute, one should note it is variable. There are always deviations of wage from the value of their labor power, as there is deviations always in the relative value of commodities from what they really are or really resolve to.

Two things explain this. The first is scarcity, which Ricardo covers by redefining the commodity to that which can be readily reproduced or increased/decreased in supply relatively easily. This for example would explain the deviation for people like actors and athletes, who do have a certain scarcity to them because they are people and thus are unique. You could say the same about any worker, however, it is generally so they are reproducable. It is not difficult to get some poor shmuck to screw some things in on an assembly line, it&#39;s far more difficult to find another Jack Nicholas.

In this sense, I suppose you could say that they are selling their "name" but their name is really their reputation, and their reputation is then really one of those aggregate mental capabilities that would form with experience... so I&#39;m not sure they resolve economically speaking as anything different.

Socially speaking the differences are obvious. The fact alone that people like actors and sports stars are seen as individuals expresses truly that they are not separated or alienated from their labor, but then again, the product of their labor is essentially them.

Another aspect which would account for the level of deviation between their wage and the true relative value of their labor would be the extreme in which the product of their labor exists. That is to say, of all things where people are paid far more than the value of their labor they are always component to a product of labor so expensive in relative value to other things, that it would certainly account for the cpacity for such a deviation to exist.