Modern Proletariat

[RNK]

I was looking at the CIA World Factbook and came upon something interesting. According to it, the working force of the United States is composed of:

Farming, Forestry, & Fishing: 0.7%
Manufacturing, Extraction, & Crafts: 22.9%
Managerial, Professional, & Technical: 34.9%
Sales & Office: 25%
Other Services: 16.5%

GDP composition by sector, ie, how much of the overall wealth-production is spread, is as follows:

Agriculture: 0.9%
Industry: 20.4%
Services: 78.6%

Services account for over 75% of wealth! What would Marx have said? Surely, in the mid to late 1800s, such an immense strata of people who have absolutely nothing to do with the production of commodities didn't exist as it does today.

So how does this factor into Marxist economics? Does it change anything? Does it matter?

Looking at other countries, it's fairly easy to find a pattern. The more developed the country, the larger the services sector. Most western countries have services sectors ranging from 65-75%. Naturally, the other sectors decrease, with agriculture being the lowest. Kazakhstan, for example, is made up of about 6% agriculture, 41% industry, and 53% services. The Congo has 6% agriculture, 55% industry, and 38% services. China, on the other hand, despite its obvious capitalist nature and powerful economy, has 12% agri, 48% industry, and 40% services. Cuba has 5% agri, 27% industry, and 68% services -- much like a western nation, though this could be due to the massive important of tourism to the Cuban economy.

This all begs the question: what does this mean? What are services, exactly? Why is the services sector so massive in highly-developed capitalist nations? Are workers in the services sector still proletarians? Are the relatively tiny numbers of the agricultural and industrial sectors indicative of the ability for a post-capitalist society to monumentally boost industrialization (and an indication of capitalism's failure to do so)? So many question!

[TheGreenWeeWee]

I do know that anyone who has to sell their labor power to the capitalist class is a proletariet. Be it in production or non-production. The working class is never independent from the capitalist class when it comes to selling one's labor power.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 12:42 pm
GDP composition by sector, ie, how much of the overall wealth-production is spread, is as follows:

Agriculture: 0.9%
Industry: 20.4%
Services: 78.6%

Services account for over 75% of wealth! What would Marx have said?
The GDP indicator is usually faulty for its designated purpose.

You're assuming that some "unit" of "service" is equal to some other "unit" of "agriculture" and another "unit" of "industry".

But this tells us nothing about say the coal industry vs. the programmer industry, for something similar.

If you could get a more accurate statistic of output growth in terms of a given year (say compare the previous twenty years tons of timber cut divided by the output in 1985) you might have something.

Seeing it as the only statistic we're given, we don't really have a choice to gauge the economy in any accurate fashion. We're condemned by the stupidity of the economists :lol:


So how does this factor into Marxist economics? Does it change anything? Does it matter? Well, no, it doesn't change a whole lot. A prole is still defined as one who sells his labor power (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/l/a.htm#labour-power) in order to survive.

I think that we can redefine a few terms, e.g. a commodity is a tangible use-value and a service is an intangible one.

Value is still determined through the same old method.

There really isn't a great deal that changes.


Why is the services sector so massive in highly-developed capitalist nations? Probably because the late capitalist states have advanced so far technologically that if only the industrial and agricultural "job markets" were left, there would be very few wage workers which constitutes the market for industry and agriculture.

So in a sense the "service industry" is a way to keep the circulation of commodities going, otherwise there would be a crisis.

But this doesn't really stop the crisis insomuch as it delays it. Just something to think about.


Are the relatively tiny numbers of the agricultural and industrial sectors indicative of the ability for a post-capitalist society to monumentally boost industrialization (and an indication of capitalism's failure to do so)? No, the role of capitalism is to industrialize.

When this is done sufficiently, such that scarcity is no longer an issue, then the material conditions for a post-capitalist society have been sown.

Again, the role of a post-capitalist society is NOT industrialization! That is the role for capitalism.

What this particular distribution of jobs tells me is that the society has advanced so far that such a "service industry" is necessary for it to not collapse...but not far enough for a revolution.

[Janus]

What are services, exactly?
Any job that involves the transportation, distribution, and provision of a product or benefit to a customer.


Why is the services sector so massive in highly-developed capitalist nations?
It seems to be an inevitable progression of capitalist economies. One explanation could be that the globalization trend causes highly developed nations to spawn larger service sectors not only in order to further please their citizens but also due to the de-industrialization, outsourcing, and the increasing automation that's occuring.


Are workers in the services sector still proletarians?
Yes, they simply provide an "intangibly" good/commodity.

[Die Neue Zeit]

What this particular distribution of jobs tells me is that the society has advanced so far that such a "service industry" is necessary for it to not collapse...but not far enough for a revolution.

So what are your requirements, then? I think that the developed world has gone far enough, and that key parts of the developing world have gone far enough, too (thanks in large part to the Internet).

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 09:15 pm

What this particular distribution of jobs tells me is that the society has advanced so far that such a "service industry" is necessary for it to not collapse...but not far enough for a revolution.

So what are your requirements, then? I think that the developed world has gone far enough, and that key parts of the developing world have gone far enough, too (thanks in large part to the Internet).
I would guess something that would effectively eliminate scarcity like nanotechnology.

True that capitalism has made great strides, there is no contest of that from me.

However it has not gone far enough for the proletariat to have in their own interests a revolution for their emancipation.

But these are pure speculations, neither of us really know what material conditions will bring about the revolution. I'm not going to pretend like I know for certain, no one does!

Such is life.

[BobKKKindle$]

However it has not gone far enough for the proletariat to have in their own interests a revolution for their emancipation. But these are pure speculations, neither of us really know what material conditions will bring about the revolution. I'm not going to pretend like I know for certain, no one does!

I disagree. The conditions within which a revolution can occur will exist very shortly.

A change in the mode of production ocurs when the development of the forces of production can no longer occur within a given set of social relations. Under Capitalism, the development of the forces of production will cease to occur when all the countervailing factors to the tendency of the rate of profit to fall no longer operate effectively and so the drive to accumulate Capitalism (competition between individual Capitals) simply breaks down.

MEDCs are increasingly resorting to the most pronounced and desperate countervailing trend to secure profit - Imperialism - both through the direct invasion of countries and through the removal of barriers to the movement of goods and Capital. This clearly suggests that Capitalism is reaching the end of its lifespan- assuming that no new countervailing trends emerge. It is possible - indeed probable - that Imperialism itself (when it takes the form of military conflict) will create the conditions that give rise to revolution.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 11:58 pm
I disagree. The conditions within which a revolution can occur will exist very shortly.

A change in the mode of production ocurs when the development of the forces of production can no longer occur within a given set of social relations. Under Capitalism, the development of the forces of production will cease to occur when all the countervailing factors to the tendency of the rate of profit to fall no longer operate effectively and so the drive to accumulate Capitalism (competition between individual Capitals) simply breaks down.
The problem is that there is a glaringly obvious last "development" of the means of production that capitalism can do (which I emphatically stated was my prediction of the material conditions to bring about the revolution): nanotechnology!

With it, solar cells become nearly 100% effecient (hell, we only need it to be around 50% effecient and it's golden), production of matter out of energy is possible, and it's a fantastic artificial white blood cell.

Further, you could have just as easily have said this fifteen years ago before the introduction of the internet market!

Frankly, as I've said, neither of us have "crystal balls" and neither of us can say that "Well, this is it!"

I reiterate my main point that I'm only predicting that nanotechnology, which effectively ends scarcity, would be the material condition for a revolution. Why work when a little box can do the same job faster and better than you?

Who knows, perhaps something totally new and unforeseeable will come up in ten years' time that came out of left field! It's happened before.


MEDCs are increasingly resorting to the most pronounced and desperate countervailing trend to secure profit - Imperialism - both through the direct invasion of countries and through the removal of barriers to the movement of goods and Capital. This clearly suggests that Capitalism is reaching the end of its lifespan- assuming that no new countervailing trends emerge. It is possible - indeed probable - that Imperialism itself (when it takes the form of military conflict) will create the conditions that give rise to revolution. Well, hope springs eternal.

I've even heard people suggest that the war in Iraq will somehow magically result in a revolution in America :lol: That's one way to not use materialistic thinking!

Frankly, I seriously doubt such a proposition that imperialism will necessarily lead to a revolution.

First it makes no sense from a materialist's point of view. (Why not just chuck the whole material causes result in changes in society, i.e. Marxist, paradigm out the window while we're at it?)

Second, it makes no logical sense. From the removal of "barriers to the movement of goods and Capital" (i.e. tariffs?) and "direct invasion of countries", a revolution does not follow.

Further, you're assumption that "no new countervailing trends emerge" is an unwarranted assumption! It's like the vulgar economist with his "ceteris paribus".

There are always the introduction of new goods, which creates new markets.

[BobKKKindle$]

The problem is that there is a glaringly obvious last "development" of the means of production that capitalism can do (which I emphatically stated was my prediction of the material conditions to bring about the revolution): nanotechnology!

The introduction of nanotechnology, when undertaken by a large number of individual Capitals, would lead to a huge increase in the organic composition of Capital - it may be the case that variable capital ceases to exist in the production process, in which case I cannot see how the rate of profit would be anything other than 0. Is this what you mean?

The same could not be said of the internet, because the internet is just a coordination and information resource, and is not directly used in production as such in that it cannot be described as Capital -this is why no Marxist economists predicted the internet would lead to the destruction of Capitalism.