Retail

[KurtFF8]

Recently a relative of mine was having a discussion about socialism with me and brought up the topic of retail (although not on purpose).

We were discussing how workers are the ones actually making products and earlier I had mentioned an interest in getting a book store started up, and while debating socialism he returned to this and was like "well why should the employees of a book shop or a pizza place have a say in how things are run"

Granted making pizza is applying labor to a product and thus is the same petty capitalist exploitation just on a small level, but something like a book store is purely retail.

I explained that there was a difference, as in retail stores, the workers aren't actually making products but just managing the distribution of those products and is just a service (the American economy has relied heavily on this which has shown to be quite unstable for example).

Looking back on this, I left this subject a little too early. There are such things as consumer co-ops for example which would still be collective organizing of the distribution of products (aka taking the place of retail stores).

Have any of you run into this in debating with liberals or market fans? It seems that Americans are quite focused on workers like retail workers for example. How do you usually deal with this?

[Pogue]

I just say that we retail workers sell our labour as anyone else, and so deserve the full receipt of it. Thus, we should be in control of the shop and gain its profits collectively, just like anywhere else.

[The Douche]

What product does a hairdresser make? What product does a trashman make? What product does a mechanic make? Hell, what product does a doctor make?

None, they provide a service which is essential to society. If it was not for shops how would you acquire the things which are produced? Also, many retail workers develop an expertise in their field of sales (product knowledge) which the "average joe" doesn't have.

[JimmyJazz]

We were discussing how workers are the ones actually making products and earlier I had mentioned an interest in getting a book store started up, and while debating socialism he returned to this and was like "well why should the employees of a book shop or a pizza place have a say in how things are run"

...

Looking back on this, I left this subject a little too early. There are such things as consumer co-ops for example which would still be collective organizing of the distribution of products

I think the discussion you had took worker control as something tremendously too specific. I consider it to include matters like the length of the working day/week, and the setup of working conditions. Not voting on what color pens your office is going to use or something silly like that.

When you use this definition of workers' control, it's pretty obvious that the workers should get say and not consumers. It's not really the book consumer's business to decide how many hours a day the book retailer must work, or whether he/she should be forced to life boxes heavier than 50 pounds on the job, etc.

And I think we all agree that consumer and retailer have more in common with each other than with the shareholder who mediates between them, taking a profit out of the retailer's wages and jacking up the price of the book for the consumer. No matter what, the capitalist shouldn't enter the picture.

[BIG BROTHER]

A capitalist buys all the books, then he sells them at a higher price. The book remains the same, so where does the profit come? Just like in a factory the profit comes from the exploitation of the worker, except in this case he didn't make the books, but he managed the distribution place(bookstore) and sold that labor to the capitalist.

[not_of_this_world]

Nationalize big oil. Nationalize the auto companies. Nationalize all manufacturing of any item! Close down the stock market. Break the Federal Reserve Bank. Let's have Universal Free health care. Keep taxes to pay the doctors. Let the little shop go do it's thing. Bring down the capitalist fat pig who is ripping us off with our labor and our money! Sounds simple to me. Are you training for a militia in your neighborhood?

[BobKKKindle$]

Retail workers are obviously not involved in the physical production of goods in the same way as manufacturing workers and so, although they are important for the bourgeoisie insofar as they realize profit by selling finished goods to consumers, they do not produce surplus value, or increase the value of the product, and so their wages are dependent on the surplus value generated by productive workers. In other words, retail workers are part of the unproductive sector, and are not exploited. In oppressor nations, unproductive workers comprise a majority of the working population and this is why these nations have consistently failed to exhibit revolutionary potential during the imperialist epoch.

[KurtFF8]

Retail workers are obviously not involved in the physical production of goods in the same way as manufacturing workers and so, although they are important for the bourgeoisie insofar as they realize profit by selling finished goods to consumers, they do not produce surplus value, or increase the value of the product, and so their wages are dependent on the surplus value generated by productive workers. In other words, retail workers are part of the unproductive sector, and are not exploited. In oppressor nations, unproductive workers comprise a majority of the working population and this is why these nations have consistently failed to exhibit revolutionary potential during the imperialist epoch.

Indeed, but while retail workers aren't exactly productive workers in the way that a worker who adds value to a product are, don't you think that their role is just as important?

Granted in a country like America where retail and unproductive workers dominate the work force and lead to the consumerist culture that keeps the working class in America "in line" there is a problem.

But as pointed out earlier, retail workers do provide an important role to society, and not every worker can be engaged in productive activity in a socialist society I would imagine, wouldn't there have to be room for unproductive labor (strictly in the sense of adding value to goods)

[Glenn Beck]

I would argue that probably the majority is the working class at any point is not involved primarily in productive occupations like manufacturing, but rather in essential services, both privileged and unprivileged, paid and unpaid, that allow the system to continue to reproduce itself and facilitate the extraction of profits. A woman who stays at home while her husband works at a factory is working class because her unpaid labor contributes to her husbands productivity and the creation of future workers. A retail worker is working class because he or she facilitates the movement and sale of goods and thus closes the chain between producer and consumer. A worker-controlled society should most certainly have distribution coordinated by those who work in that industry with the end-goal of meeting the consumers needs (they are, after all, consumers as well and that is the social function of the distribution part of the chain).

"Working class" doesn't mean big dudes with hammers working at a huge smokestack factory, that is just the stereotype in our heads from the period in history where the working class came into its own as a major class and the socialist movement was born. Most factory workers these days are women and children in places like Mexico and Indonesia. The fact that most productive labor isn't done in the USA does have serious consequences that we should study, but folks are generally the same class at either end of the supply chain. And as JimmyJazz pointed out, the capitalist is superfluous at every point in this chain.

[BIG BROTHER]

Retail workers are obviously not involved in the physical production of goods in the same way as manufacturing workers and so, although they are important for the bourgeoisie insofar as they realize profit by selling finished goods to consumers, they do not produce surplus value, or increase the value of the product, and so their wages are dependent on the surplus value generated by productive workers. In other words, retail workers are part of the unproductive sector, and are not exploited. In oppressor nations, unproductive workers comprise a majority of the working population and this is why these nations have consistently failed to exhibit revolutionary potential during the imperialist epoch.

I disagree, the owner of a retail store buys goods at a low price, and sells them at a higher price. Where does he get that profit from? why does he get to profit?

The profit comes from the labor the retail workers put into running the retail store, and the profit its acceptable because otherwise consumers would have all to drive to the different factories(probably in china BTW) where the products are made and get everything themselves.

[KurtFF8]

I disagree, the owner of a retail store buys goods at a low price, and sells them at a higher price. Where does he get that profit from? why does he get to profit?

The profit comes from the labor the retail workers put into running the retail store, and the profit its acceptable because otherwise consumers would have all to drive to the different factories(probably in china BTW) where the products are made and get everything themselves.

Actually, the profit itself doesn't come from the worker's labor but from the prices of the goods sold. Retail stores are effectively merchant outlets: they buy and sell commodities or buy low sell high.

The labor they buy isn't really creating any value in this case but is basically all management in a sense: the labor is just managing the successful selling of the commodity (which includes helping encourage people to buy it, preventing theft, keeping the store clean, etc etc)

In this sense labor is not exploited in the way that productive labor is. It isn't adding value to commodities. That doesn't mean, however, that "oppression" or a broader version of exploitation are not going on here, it's just not the type of exploitation Marx was talking about in Capital.

In a worker's democracy, though, this idea of private merchants owning stores, hiring wage labor to increase their profits, etc. would have to be radically rethought in some way. And as with most issues in the left: how to do that is a matter of much debate.

[JimmyJazz]

"Working class" doesn't mean big dudes with hammers working at a huge smokestack factory, that is just the stereotype in our heads from the period in history where the working class came into its own as a major class and the socialist movement was born.

Yeah, I really suggest this book (http://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Discontent-Individualism-Corporate-Society/dp/0745324061/ref=ed_oe_p) for anyone from what capitalist sociologists and the capitalist media call a "middle class" background. (There may be such a thing as the middle class, but the people that capitalist apologists give this label are pure working class). Also, Marx's early stuff (on alienation and whatnot). We are all workers, and we all produce surplus values, even if by pushing a pen.

The Working Class Majority: America's Best Kept Secret (http://www.amazon.com/Working-Class-Majority-Americas-Secret/dp/0801487277/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230235750&sr=8-1) is really good too.

[bobroberts]

Everyone who works a job is creating value. People aren't given jobs due to a misguided sense of charity, they are given jobs because they are required in the functioning of the economy and their labor produces profit. In a capitalist economy, the value they create, or help create due to their performing of required services, does not go to them and so they are exploited. They are basically forced into that type of labor in order to avoid poverty and destitution. If you value freedom, then the people forced into these positions by the economic system should have a say of how these businesses operate and who gets compensated for what.

[bruce]

Wouldn't there still be retail functions under true communism to mitigate transaction costs?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Actually, the profit itself doesn't come from the worker's labor but from the prices of the goods sold. Retail stores are effectively merchant outlets: they buy and sell commodities or buy low sell high.

The labor they buy isn't really creating any value in this case but is basically all management in a sense: the labor is just managing the successful selling of the commodity (which includes helping encourage people to buy it, preventing theft, keeping the store clean, etc etc)

Actually, there is surplus labour involved (hence Marx's manuscript of Volume II of Das Kapital, and hence why Kautsky correctly called retail workers "genuine proletarians"). Retail brands don't have their value without the labour to "polish" that brand.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The basic premise of the retail argument is that, to acquire more wealth, the "owner" of this store needs assistance. You the individual cannot handle five cash registers at once, but if you have any hope of surviving and growing, you better find enough hands who can. As others pointed out, whatever the nature or consequence of the labor, it's needed.

I don't know about liberals, but when consulting more right-oriented capitalist apologists, it helps to point out that a landlord is simply another, albeit weaker sovereign. The landlord is his own government: he has claim over a geographical area. The discussion then turns to: would you rather live in a democracy, or a dictatorship?

Of course for some matters we all would like to be dictators - most socialists desire control over their car and computer - but when you start talking about production, and wealth that needs the help of others to come into fruition, yes, even the janitor should have some say.

Now as a mutualist I believe the market and participatory democracy makes sense in this context: the workers decide for themselves what kind of society they want to work for. Majoritarian democracy? 100% agreed upon democracy? There might be some smaller instances of "contract" work, but societal pressure would keep it in check.

[KurtFF8]

Actually, there is surplus labour involved (hence Marx's manuscript of Volume II of Das Kapital, and hence why Kautsky correctly called retail workers "genuine proletarians"). Retail brands don't have their value without the labour to "polish" that brand.

I suppose I was thinking about surplus labor as applied to a commodity. But this morning, actually, I thought of how the logic of surplus value can be applied to non "product making" services like retail.

For example, if a retail worker only needs 4 hours of the 8 hour day, there is still a 100% exploitation rate going on, and thus the merchant/capitalist who owns the retail outlet is exploiting the labor.

[RebelDog]

In other words, retail workers are part of the unproductive sector, and are not exploited. In oppressor nations, unproductive workers comprise a majority of the working population and this is why these nations have consistently failed to exhibit revolutionary potential during the imperialist epoch.

Maybe they did not 'exhibit revolutionary potential' because some people were telling them they were (in your words) unproductive and not exploited. Capitalism has a lot of labour that can be done away with in a planned, self-managed, participatory-economy which is clearly not planning and producing for markets as capitalists do. This does not render those people who currently work in sectors like retail as unproductive, unexploited and without revolutionary potential. Any future socialist economy will still need people to distribute the social product, are those workers still to be labelled unproductive in that context? Try working in a supermarket and see a glimpse of reality.

[Psy]

Any future socialist economy will still need people to distribute the social product, are those workers still to be labelled unproductive in that context?
Not only to distribute products of society, since stores wouldn't be geared towards profits their sales staff could focus on satisfying the needs of the consumers, they'd also provide a vital role in providing feed back to producers since it would be logical place for consumers to voice their options on products that can be forwarded to not just single producers but to all producers (thus eliminating the need for market research since producers would have relations with consumers via stores and theoretically should know what consumers want via that feedback)

[BIG BROTHER]

Actually, there is surplus labour involved (hence Marx's manuscript of Volume II of Das Kapital, and hence why Kautsky correctly called retail workers "genuine proletarians"). Retail brands don't have their value without the labour to "polish" that brand.

^^^^
Thanks for doing the research Jacob.