ServicesinMarxianeconomicthought

FionaTregenna FacultyofEconomics,UniversityofCambridge Abstract The services sector has grown as a share of GDP and employment in most countries in recentyears,andtherehasbeenincreasinginterestinunderstandingthissectorandinits growthpotential.Thisarticleanalysesthemeaningandnatureoftheservicessectorfrom a Marxian perspective. Marx did not analyse services as such (although he did discuss certaintypesofactivitiesthatarecurrentlyclassifiedasservices),andsectorsarenotthe unitsofhiseconomicanalysis.FromaMarxianapproach,anactivityneedstobeanalysedin terms of its location in the circuit of capital and its relationship with the production of surplusvalue. The services sector includes activities which are highly heterogeneous in theseterms,includingactivitiesinwhichsurplusvalueisdirectlyproduced,activitieswhich facilitate the production of surplusvalue elsewhere (or increase the rate at which it is produced),andactivitiesthatstandoutsideofthecircuitofcapital.Marxiantoolsofanalysis yieldparticularinsightsintothenatureofvarioustypesofserviceactivities,whichishelpful inunderstandingsectoralstructureandthepotentialimplicationsofchangestherein. JELcodes:B14,B31,B51,L80 Keywords:Marx,services,circulation,surplusvalue,sectors,commodities

Contact: fmt21@cam.ac.uk, ftregenna@gmail.com. Thanks to Geoff Harcourt, Gabriel Palma, and HaJoon Changforhelpfulcomments;anyerrorsoromissionsaremyown.

INTRODUCTION

TheservicesectorhasbecomeincreasinglyimportanttotheGDPandemploymentofmany countries.Developmentsindiverseactivitiessuchascallcentres,IT,onlineretail,personal services,andevencertaintypesoffinance,hasgivenrisetodebatesaroundthecapacityof services to create employment, generate foreign exchange, drive technological progress, andleadeconomicgrowth. The very concept of a services sector is, however, rather alien to Marxs economics. The sectoral categories of national accounts are not the units of analysis of Marxian analysis, andsectoralstructureisnotintegraltoMarxianeconomics. Marx does not devote much attention to services as such (although he does deal extensively with certain types of activities that are currently classified within the services sector).Severalreasonsmightbesuggestedtoexplainthis.Theoretically,servicesisnota particularly meaningful or useful category within a Marxian analytical framework. Empirically, during Marxs time services comprised a relatively small proportion of total economicactivity,asituationverydifferentfromtodaywheretheyaccountformostofboth employmentandGDPinmostcountriesoftheworld.Furthermore,atthattimetherewasa much lower degree of outsourcing of services to specialised service providers than is currently the case, as these activities were typically undertaken inhouse (e.g., in a manufacturingfirm)ratherthanfallingwithinadistinctservicessector.Inaddition,personal servicesaccountedforahigherproportionoftotalservicesduringMarxstimethanisthe casetoday,andthesepersonalservicesweretypicallyconductedonanoncapitalistbasis. ThisarticleanalysesthemeaningoftheservicessectorfromaMarxianperspective.Much oftheanalysisisbasedonaclose(andessentiallyClassicalMarxian)readingofthetexts.1 GrundrisseprobablycontainsthemostextensivediscussiononpersonalservicesinMarxs work.CirculatoryservicesaremostthoroughlydealtwithinCapital,whichalsoprovidesthe mostcomprehensiveoverallframeworkforanalysingcapitalism.

When citing Marx's texts, the original date of publication is indicated since this is relevant to their interpretation.Thepagenumberscited,however,refertocurrentlyavailableversions.Marxsworksarelisted intheReferencesunderbothdates.

BeforeproceedingtotheMarxiananalysis,section2brieflyconsiderstheclassificationand meaningoftheservicessectorinnationalaccountsandinnonMarxianeconomics.Section 3 sets out a framework for classifying activities in terms of their relationship to the production of surplusvalue, with particular attention to the meaning of a commodity. Fromthisperspective,theactivitiesclassifiedaspartoftheservicessectorarediscussedin categories that make sense in Marxian terms. Section 4 discusses capitalist commodity producingservices;section5discussescirculatoryservices;section6dealswithproductive transportandstorage;andsection7looksatnoncapitalisticservices.Section8concludes.

CLASSIFICATIONOFTHESERVICESSECTORINNONMARXIANECONOMICS

TheUnitedNations(UN),initspolicyontheclassificationofeconomicactivitiesincountries nationalaccounts,definesservicesas:
outputsproducedtoorderandtypicallyconsistofchangesinthe conditionsof theconsuming unitsrealizedbytheactivitiesofproducersatthedemandoftheconsumers.Bythetimetheir production is completed they must have been provided to the consumers. The production of servicesmustbeconfinedtoactivitiesthatarecapableofbeingcarriedoutbyoneunitforthe benefit of another.Otherwise, service industries could not develop and there could be no marketsforservices.Itisalsopossibleforaunittoproduceaserviceforitsownconsumption provided that the type of activity is such that it could have been carried out by another unit. (UnitedNations,2001).

The definition notes that services cannot be traded separately from their production. (ibid).Thechangesachievedthroughtheconsumptionofservicescouldincludechangesin theconditionoftheconsumersgoods,inthephysicalormentalconditionofpersons,orin thegeneraleconomicstateofaninstitutionalunit,andthesechangesmaybetemporaryor permanent. Howeveritgoesontonoteinanindicationofthefluidityandpotentialambiguityofthese definitionsthatthedemarcationbetweenservicesandmanufacturingcanbeblurry:
thereisagroupofindustriesgenerallyclassifiedasserviceindustriesthatproduceoutputsthat have many of the characteristics of goods, i.e., those industries concerned with the provision, storage, communication and dissemination of information, advice and entertainment in the broadest sense of those termsthe production of general or specialized information, news, consultancy reports, computer programs, movies, music, etc.The outputs of these industries, overwhichownershiprightsmaybeestablished,are oftenstored onphysical objectspaper, tapes, disks, etc. that can be traded like ordinary goods.Whether characterized as goods or

services,theseproductspossesstheessentialcommoncharacteristicthattheycanbeproduced byoneunitandsuppliedtoanother,thusmakingpossibledivisionoflabourandtheemergence ofmarkets.(ibid).

Furthermore, the records of the UN System of National Accounts Expert Group show interestingdiscussionsaroundvariousrelatedissues,suchaswhethertodistinguishgoods andservicesasmaterialandnonmaterialrespectivelyorastangibleandnontangible respectively, as well as around the meanings of commodity and of product. They have also discussed the classification of domestic services, resolving that when a household employsadomesticservantdirectlyitisthehouseholdthatistheproduceroftheoutput and thus must be classified as a non market producer. By contrast if domestic service is provided to the household through a commercial cleaningservice company that output is market production. Selfemployed persons producing cleaning services also would be countedasmarketproducers.(UnitedNations,1989). Notwithstanding these debates, the basics of the sectoral classification of activities in nationalaccountingaremorewidelyacceptedandstandardisedtheworldover.Inaddition, sectors are one of the basic units of analysis in both mainstream economics and non Marxian heterodox economics (although there are differences in terms of the extent to whichsectoralspecificitymatters,particularlyforgrowth). Therearethreebroad(andnotnecessarilymutuallyexclusive)waysofclassifyingservicesin theexistingliterature.First,accordingtowhethertheyareforintermediateorfinaldemand (usingIOtables,etc.);second,basedontheenduserwherethisreferstoproducerservices, consumer services, and (sometimes included) government services; and third, between marketandnonmarketservices. Katouzians (1970) influential analysis classified services into three categories: new services, complementary services and old services. Old services are those whose importance declined since industrialisation, owing to changes in the mode of production anditsimpactonsocialrelations.Hesuggestsdomesticserviceasthepreeminentexample of this category of services, foreseeing a decline in the share of domestic services in total services over time. New services (the conceptualisation of which roughly approximates Fishers definition of the tertiary sector) are those whose consumption took off since the 4

Rostovian stage of high mass consumption of manufactured products, notably consumer durables.Beforetheageofmassconsumption,demandfortheseserviceswaslimitedtoa minority and there were no huge shifts in demand for them. The new services include medicalservices,education,entertainmentandtourism.Thirdly,complementaryservices arethosecomplementarytoindustrialisation,andwhoseproductionnormallytakesasharp upturn with the rise of the growth of output in general and manufacturing production in particular. These services would include financial services, trade, transport, and certain government services. Sabolo (1975) also distinguishes between new and old sectors, where the former tend to have positive income elasticity of demand while the latter are traditional types of services and often have negative elasticities of demand, such as domesticservicesorsmalltrading. Gershuny and Miles (1983) classify sectors according to the nature of activities and the factors involved in the supply and demand of the activities. They distinguish between marketed and nonmarketed services, further subdividing the former into producer, distributiveandpersonalservices. Hirsh(1989)arguesthatservicesshouldbeclassifiedaccordingtotheprimaryreasonwhy theserviceisdemanded.Hedistinguishesthreecategoriesinthisregard.First,servicesthat aredemandedinordertoobtainimmediatebenefits(forexample,servicessuchastourism or entertainment). Second, services demanded for their capacity to enhance a users consumptionbenefitcapacitybyreducingthecostbenefitratioperproducttransaction(for example, transport or communications). Third, services demanded for their capacity to enhancetheusersproductivecapacitybyreducingthecostbenefitratioperunitofoutput (forexample,businessservicesorsomeformsoftransport).

SERVICESANDTHEPRODUCTIONOFSURPLUSVALUE

WenowdevelopaMarxianapproachtosectoralstructure,whichinformsthesubsequent analysisoftheservicessector.Someprinciplesoftheapproacharesetout,intermsofthe centralityofsurplusvalueproductionandtherelevanceofthistoclassifyingactivities,the natureofcommodities,andproductiveversusunproductivelabour.

This analysis is prefaced by briefly reflecting on a pertinent methodological and epistemological difference between bourgeois economics and Marxian economics. In the latter, an activity cannot be classified simply by inspection. This difference is especially relevanttoaMarxiananalysisofsectoralstructure.Inbourgeoiseconomics,thetypological method is primarily phenomenological: observing an activity generally allows for a determination as to which sector it falls within. The classification of an activity within a Marxian schema, by contrast, is contingent on the underlying social form of the activity.2 Thefundamentalissuesinanalysinganactivityrelatelesstowhatapersonisdoinginan observableway,andmoretogenerallyunobservablecharacteristicssuchastherelationship oftheactivitytotheproductionandrealizationofsurplusvalue.Moreover,fromaMarxian perspective a commodity is classified as such not according to its physical characteristics, but rather according to the way in which it was produced.3 Marxian economic categories thus have a fundamentally different epistemological basis from bourgeois economic classifications as used in national accounting, in mainstream economics, and also in non Marxianheterodoxeconomics. Toillustratethismethodologicaldifferencewithreferencetothecharacterisationoflabour, for instance, Marx clarifies that for labour to be designated productive, qualities are required which are utterly unconnected with the specific content of the labour, with its particular utility or the usevalue in which it is objectified. Hence labour with the same

Methodologically and epistemologically, this serves to emphasise the need for structuralist analysis that penetrates beyond epiphenomena. Marx repeatedly stresses the imperative of setting aside surface phenomenaorappearancesinordertounderstandthetrueunderlyingdynamics.Forinstance,Marxexplains hisapproachtotheanalysisofaccumulationbyobservingthattherealprocessofaccumulationisobscured and therefore an exact analysis of the process [of accumulation] demands that we should, for a time, disregard all phenomena that conceal the workings of its inner mechanism. (Marx, 1867, p.710). In distinguishing between surplusvalue and profits he notes that surplusvalue and rate of surplusvalue are, relatively,theinvisibleandunknownessencethatwantsinvestigating,whilerateofprofitandthereforethe appearance of surplusvalue in the form of profit are revealed on the surface of the phenomenon. (Marx, 1885,p.43).Marxexpressesasimilarpointmorecolourfullywhenintroducingthemovefromthediscussionof theEquality,PropertyandBenthamofthemarkettothediscussionoftheproductionofsurplusvalue:The consumptionoflabourpoweriscompleted,asinthecaseofeveryothercommodity,outsidethelimitsofthe marketorofthesphereofcirculation.Letustherefore,incompanywiththeownerofmoneyandtheowner oflabourpower,leavethisnoisysphere,whereeverythingtakesplaceonthesurfaceandinviewofeveryone, and follow them into the hidden abode of production, on whose threshold there hangs the notice No admittance except on business. Here we shall see, not only how capital produces, but how capital is produced.Thesecretofprofitmakingmustatlastbelaidbare.(Marx,1867,pp.27980). TheendpurposeofacommodityisrelevanttothesecondaryclassificationofcommoditiesintoDepartments IandII,whichisnotofdirectrelevancetoouranalysis
3

content can be either productive or unproductive. (Marx, 1967, p.1044; emphasis in original.)Thesameactioncanbeproductiveorunproductivelabour,andmayormaynot generatesurplusvalue,andcouldbepartofproductionorofcirculation,dependingonthe (often unobservable) social form of the activity. Marx makes an example of a singer, who maywhileengagingintheidenticalactivitybeanunproductiveworker,amerchant,ora productiveworker,withthisentirelydependingonherrelationshipwiththeproductionand appropriationofsurplusvalue. The fundamental question from a Marxian perspective in classifying an activity is its relationshiptotheproduction,realization,appropriation,anddistributionofsurplusvalue. Indeed, the economic process in capitalism with which Marx is centrally concerned is the productionandappropriationofsurplusvalue. Surplusvalueisnotproducedineithernoncapitalistmodesofproductionorinnonmarket activities (although surplus labour may be performed). Surplusvalue is produced in some but not all capitalistic activities. The focus here on the analysis and categorisation of capitalist activities, and unless otherwise indicated, all activities and commodities being discussedareassumedtobecapitalistic. The typology and characterisation of activities derives from their location in the circuit of capital,whichistheessentialanalyticalframeworkofMarxianeconomics.Thefundamental conceptsthatMarxintroducesintopoliticaleconomyaresetoutlargelywithreferenceto the circuit of capital, and it encapsulates the basic logic of how the capitalist economy operates.
LP In terms of the circuit of productive capital M C { } P...C M , value is expanded in MP ...

thecommodityproductionprocessP,specificallythroughthecontributionoflabourpower LP.Hencetheproducedcommodity C hasgreatervaluethanthecommoditiesCusedin theproductionprocess.ItisspecificallyinthecommodityproductionprocessPthatvalueis addedandsurplusvalueisgenerated. The first axis along which activities can be classified is therefore between those in which surplusvalueisgenerated(i.e.inwhichvalueincreases),whichisthestageP,andactivities in the other parts of the circuit of capital, M C and C M . Any further distinctions 7

between different types of surplusvalueproducing processes, or different types of non surplusvalueproducingprocesses,aresecondarytothisprimarydistinctionbetweenPand activitiesintherestofthecircuitofcapital.4 It is thus in the (capitalist) production of commodities specifically that surplusvalue is generated(anditisrealizedoncethecommoditiesaresold).Activitiescanbeclassifiedin terms of whether or not they produce commodities. At this point we therefore reflect on thenatureofacommodity,withspecificattentiontocertainsectorrelatedissuesthatwill becomeimportantinthesubsequentMarxiananalysisofsectors. Commodities have usevalue (that is, they satisfy some form of human wants, whether naturalorsociallyconstructed)aswellasexchangevalue,andareproducedforexchange ratherthanforownuse.5Theconditionthattheymustbeproducedmeansthattheymust embodyhumanlabour. InourinterpretationofMarxandthisiscriticaltoouranalysisofservicescommodities are not limited to physical goods, and similarly production is not limited to the physical production of a tangible object. When Marx writes about commodities it might appear as though he generally had in mind physical objects, as the examples which he uses in his exposition and numerical illustrations are usually of objects such as cotton. But his theoretical analysis indicates that commodities are not limited to physical objects. Labour power, albeit a unique type of commodity, is an example of a commodity that is not a tangiblephysicalobject.

Notethatwearenotprivilegingorassertinganyontologicalprimacytoanyparticularstageofthecircuitof capital,butaredemarcatingactivitiesaccordingtotheirlocationandroleinthecircuitofcapital.
5

InMarxsownwords:Thecommodityis,firstofall,anexternalobject,athingwhichthroughitsqualities satisfieshumanneedsofwhateverkind.(Marx,1967,p.125).Itisanobjectwithdualcharacter,possessing both usevalue and exchangevalue. (Marx, 1967, p.131). Elsewhere Marx defines commodities in the followingterms: Theseproductsarecommodities,orusevalues,whichhaveanexchangevaluethatistoberealised, tobeconvertedintomoney,onlyinsofarasothercommoditiesformanequivalentforthem,thatis, otherproductsconfrontthemascommoditiesandvalues;thus,insofarastheyarenotproducedas immediate means of subsistence for the producers themselves, but as commodities, as products which become usevalues only by their transformation into exchangevalues (money), by their alienation.(Marx,1894,p.637).

The physical properties of something neither qualify it to be a commodity nor exclude it from the realm of commodities. As Marx writes, the commodity form, and the value relation of the products of labour within which it appears, have absolutely no connection withthephysicalnatureofthecommodityandthematerial[dinglich]relationsarisingout of this (Marx, 1867, p.165). Recall our earlier remarks concerning Marxs methodological andepistemologicalapproach:anactivityoraproductofanactivitycannotnecessarilybe characterisedorclassifiedonthebasisofobservation. In this respect Marxs approach differs from the physicalist approach of earlier classical economists such as Smith, Malthus, and Ricardo; who equated production with the productionofphysicalgoodsanddefinedproductivelabourintermsofthelabourinvolved in the production of such goods. This definition both includes activities that would be excludedfromaMarxiandefinition(e.g.,noncommoditygoods)andexcludesactivitiesthat wouldbeincluded(e.g.,commodityservices). The nature of commodities, and specifically Marxs nonphysicalist approach to defining a commodity, is an important issue with implications for our classification of services in a Marxian schema. Were commodities to be limited to physical objects, this would exclude services from the realm of commodity production. Indeed, Smiths conflation of the goods/services and productive/unproductive labour dichotomies led him to view the servicessectorasadrainonaccumulationandgrowth. TherearealsophysicalistreadingsofMarxwithintheMarxistliterature(see,forinstance, Mandel (1976)). Interestingly, the measures of National Material Product (used instead of GDP)reportedundertheMaterialProductSystemintheformerSovietUnionandeastern bloccountriesincludedtheproductionanddistributionofphysicalgoodsbutnotservices. However, in our reading of Marx a nonphysicalist notion of a commodity is the only interpretationthatcanbesupportedbythetexts,aswellasbeingconsistentwithhisoverall theoreticalframework,forthereasonssetoutpreviously. The discussions circuit of capital and the nature of a commodity, bring us to the issue of labour visavis the production of surplusvalue. Labour is classified in the first instance in

termsofwhetheritisproductiveorunproductive,adistinctionthatrelatesdirectlytothe questionoftheproductionofsurplusvalue. For Marx, productive labour is wage labour engaged in the production of surplusvalue, through the transformative activity of production.6 In other words, for labour to be productive it must create or transform usevalues, thereby generating surplusvalue, and the labourpower must be exchanged against capital. Unproductive labour, by contrast, producesneithervaluenorsurplusvalue.Unproductiveworkersareremuneratedoutofa fund which ultimately derives from the surplusvalue originally generated by productive workers and appropriated by the capitalists who employ them, and part of which is transferredtotheemployeroftheunproductiveworker.(Evenifthisisthesamecapitalist, thesearedistinctprocesses.) Labourthatincreasesthesurplusvalueatthedisposalofacapitalistmerelybytransferring surplusvalue from elsewhere, without increasing the overall sum of value or amount of surplusvalue,isunproductive.Unproductivelabourdoesnotexpandcapital,eventhoughit maybeuseful.Acomponentofunproductivelabourmightneverthelessbeconsideredas surplus, in the sense that the labour can result in additional surplus for the capitalist in excessofthewagespaid.However,thissurpluslabourissterileinthesensethatitdoes notproducesurplusvalue,unlikesurpluslabourengagedintheproductionofcommodities. While surplusvalue is generated only through productive labour, both productive and unproductive labour may be (and typically are) engaged in surplusvalueproducing activities. That is, the fact that an activity produces commodities and generates surplus
In Theories of Surplus Value Marx sets this out clearly as follows: Productive labour is therefore in the system of capitalist production labour which producessurplusvalue for its employer, or which transforms the objective conditions of labour into capital and their owner into a capitalist; that is to say, labour which producesitsownproductascapital.Sowhenwespeakofproductivelabour,wespeakofsociallydetermined labour,labourwhichimpliesaquitespecificrelationbetweenthebuyerandsellerofthelabour.Furtheron, Marxcontinues:Productivelabouristhereforelabourwhichreproducesforthelaboureronlythepreviously determinedvalueofhislabourpower,butasanactivitycreatingvalueincreasesthevalueofcapital;inother words,whichconfrontsthelabourerhimselfwiththevaluesithascreatedintheformofcapital.(Marx,1861, p.384). Note that for labour to be productive it must not only produce surplusvalue, but must do so specifically for the employer of the labour. In the first volume of Capital Marx states clearly that capitalist productionisnotmerelytheproductionofcommodities,itis,byitsveryessence,theproductionofsurplus value.Theworkerproducesnotforhimself,butforcapital.Itisnolongersufficient,therefore,forhimsimply toproduce.Hemustproducesurplusvalue.Theonlyworkerwhoisproductiveisonewhoproducessurplus value for the capitalist, or in other words contributes towards the selfvalorization of capital. (Marx, 1867, p.644).
6

10

valuedoesnotmeanthatalllabourengagedintheactivityisproductive.Theproductivityor otherwiseofthelabourdependsontheparticularrelationshipofthatspecificlabourwith theproductionandappropriationofsurplusvalue.7Alllabourengagedinnonsurplusvalue producing activities is unproductive, as discussed previously, even though such activities maywellfacilitate,support,orincreasetherealizationofsurplusvalueelsewhere. Labouristhusdefinedasproductiveorunproductiveintermsofwhetherornotitproduces surplusvalue, with the distinction being unrelated to the eventual use to be made of the commodity. That the productive or unproductive character of labour cannot be discerned fromthenatureofitsproductisbroughtoutinthefollowingexcerpt:
neither the special kind of labour nor the external form of its product necessarily make it productiveorunproductive.ThesamelabourcanbeproductivewhenIbuyitasacapitalist, asaproducer,inordertocreatemorevalue,andunproductivewhenIbuyitasaconsumer,a spender of revenue, in order to consume its usevalue, no matter whether this usevalue perisheswiththeactivityofthelabourpoweritselformaterialisesandfixesitselfinanobject. (Marx,1861,pp.1601).

ThispassagewhichcomesinthecontextofMarxscritiqueofSmithsphysicalistapproach todefiningcommodities,production,andtheproductivityorunproductivityoflabouralso bringsusbacktoMarxsnonphysicalistconceptionofacommodity,andtherelevanceof thistotheclassificationoflabour.Theissueiswhetheracommodityisproduced,withthe material or nonmaterial character of a commodity being produced having no bearing on whether the labour engaged in its production is productive or unproductive. It may be inferredfromthisthatevenaservicecommodity,inwhichtheusevalueperisheswiththe activityofthelabourpoweritself,canbeproductiveifthislabourpowerispurchasedbya capitalistforthepurposeofexpandingvalue,justasinthecaseofatangiblemanufactured commodityinwhichcasethelabourpowermaterialisesandfixesitselfinanobject. Thepointthatproductivelabourcanbeengagedineithermanufacturingorservicesisalso made explicitly and rather colourfully in Marxs explanation that a productive worker can produceeitherteachingservicesorsausages:Ifwemaytakeanexamplefromoutsidethe sphereofmaterialproduction,aschoolmasterisaproductiveworkerwhen,inadditionto belabouringtheheadsofhispupils,heworkshimselfintothegroundtoenrichtheownerof
NotethattheMarxianconceptionoftheproductivityoflabourhasnorelationshipwiththesocialnecessity orusefulnessofthelabourorwithanyotherdimensionofitsdesirability.
7

11

the school. That the latter has laid out his capital in a teaching factory, instead of in a sausagefactory,makesnodifferencetotherelation(Marx,1867,p.644). The heterogeneity of activities included in services is especially striking when considered fromaMarxianperspective.Theservicessector,asclassifiedinnationalaccountsandinthe nonMarxianeconomicsliterature,includesactivitieswithcompletelydifferentrelationships to the production, realisation, appropriation, and distribution of surplusvalue. In addition to spanning both capitalistic and noncapitalistic activities, services include both commodityproducingandcirculatoryactivities.Whatiscommontoservicesisarguablyless important, from a Marxian perspective, than the differences among the various types of serviceactivities. When Marx speaks of services he is generally referring to particular types of non capitalistic services which were predominant at the time of his writing. He discusses circulatoryservicesatsomelength,andalsodealswithtransportandstorage,butdoesnot discusscommodityproducingservicesspecifically(apartfromhisgeneraldiscussionofthe productionofcommodities). We now proceed to analyse activities that are currently classified in the services sector, from a Marxian perspective. These activities are considered in categories which have an internallogicalcoherenceintermsoftheapproachsetoutabove.Thesecategoriesareas follows: commodityproducing services; circulatory services; productive transport and storage;andnoncapitalisticservices. 4 CAPITALISTCOMMODITYPRODUCINGSERVICES

Asdiscussedintheprevioussection,thecommodityproducedinthePstageofthecircuitof capitalneednotbeaphysicalobject,itmayalsobeaservice(providedtheservicemeets the criteria of a commodity as discussed earlier). For example, a haircut performed in a hairdressing salon for a paying customer by a hairdresser employed by the owner of the salon is a commodity, and in the production of the haircut surplusvalue is generated throughtheproductivelabourofthehairdresser.Marxcharacterisescommodityproducing servicesastypesofworkthatareconsumedasservicesandnotinproductsseparablefrom the worker and hence not capable of existing as commodities independently of him, but 12

which are yet capable of being directly exploited in capitalist terms (Marx, 1867, p.1044; emphasisinoriginal). Inelucidatingthedifferencesbetweenproductiveandunproductivelabour,Marxnotesas instancesofproductivelabourawriterwhoturnsoutworkforhispublisherinfactorystyle, asingeremployedbyanentrepreneur,andaschoolmasterwhoworksforwagesinaprofit makinginstitution.Theseareallexamplesofsurplusvalueproducingservices.WhileMarx does note the existence of capitalist commodityproducing services, he regards these services as being of microscopic significance when compared with the mass of capitalist productionandconcludesthereforethattheymaybeentirelyneglected(ibid,pp.10445). There seems to be some inconsistency in Marxs treatment of commodityproducing capitalist services, as he mixes important conceptual distinctions with observations about the conjunctural empirical significance of these activities. Although Marx recognises these activities as involving productive labour and producing surplusvalue, he opts to neglect them and lump them together with unproductive wagelabour. This derives from his observations concerning the small scale of these activities at that time, rather than from theoreticalprecisionorcoherence. EvenifMarxsapproachwasjustifiableatthattimeonthegroundsofthethenmicroscopic significance of these activities, this would not hold true in modern economies. We thus follow Marxs theoretical approach rather than his empiricallybased shortcut categorisation.Theapproachtakenhereisalsoconsistentwiththeearlierdiscussiononthe natureofacommodityandMarxsrejectionofphysicalistnotionsofacommodity,aswell aswiththedistinctionsbetweenproductiveandunproductivelabour. Thekeycharacteristicofservicescommoditiesthatdistinguishesthemfrommanufactured commodities is that the production and consumption of services commodities generally cannot viably be separated in time, and in most cases in space as well. The labour power embodied in a service commodity remains present in the commodity itself, typically in a recognisable form, as opposed to manufacturing where the labour power (along with the means of production) is embodied in the commodity in a transformed form. That is, the labourpowercommodityistypicallyinseparablefromtheproducedcommodity.Thelabour

13

powerembodiedinaservicescommodityremainslivinglabour,andnotdeadlabourasin thecaseofmanufacturedcommodities. There are some intermediate commodities, and exceptions and ambiguous cases, for whichproductionandconsumptioncanbeseparatedintimeandspacetoalimitedextent, and/or for which labour power embodied in the commodity is not visible in its original forminthecommodityitself.Forexample,amealprepreparedinarestaurantmightonly besoldandconsumedatalatertime,andthelabourpowerofthekitchenworkersinthe commoditymaybeindistinguishablefromthemeansofproductionembodiedinit.Sucha process might actually be more akin to manufacturing than to services. Indeed, the preparation of the same meal by a food manufacturing company to be retailed in a supermarketwouldbecountedasmanufacturing.Thesearegreyareas,notonlyintermsof theMarxiantypologybeingdevelopedhere,butalsoinmainstreameconomicsandinthe practiceofnationalaccounting. Althoughtheproductionofaservicecommoditystillconformstothebasiccircuitofcapital, P and C are essentially compressed in time (and usually also space) into what is effectively a single stage.8 This bears some similarity with the circuit of capital that Marx setsoutfortransport(tobediscussedbelow).Inthecaseofservicecommodities,however, thereisstillthecommoditystage C andpaymentisactuallyrenderedagainstthisevenifit ispracticallyinseparablefromP,whereaswithtransportwherethereisno C moment.9

CIRCULATORYSERVICES

Circulatoryactivitiesincludebothpreproductionactivitiessuchasbringingtogetherinputs inaformsuitableforenteringintotheproductionprocess,andpostproductionactivities associated with the realization and distribution of surplusvalue. These activities thus facilitate the transformation of capital between its various forms productive capital,

InthestandardcircuitofcapitalthePand C areconnectedbydottedlinesratherthanbyadash,where thedottedlinesindicateaninterruptioninthecirculationofcapitalwhileitscircularmovementcontinuesas capitalmovesbetweenthespheresofproductionandcirculation(Marx,1885,p.35).

8 9

This does not imply that the issues of postproduction circulation are irrelevant to the case of services commodities. For instance, the problem of realization remains, but it requires resolution prior to the productionstage(inorderforthecircuittobesustainableonacapitalistbasis).

14

money capital, and commodity capital. Circulatory services do not transform commodities oraddanyvalue. Marxexplainsthenatureofcostsofcirculationasfollows:
Costs of circulation, which originate in a mere change of form of value, in circulation, ideally considered,donotenterintothevalueofcommodities.Thepartsofcapitalexpendedassuch are merely deductions from the productively expended capital so far as the capitalist is concerned.(Marx,1885,p.139).

No surplusvalue is produced in circulatory services and all labour engaged in them is unproductive. However, these activities may facilitate the realization of surplusvalue by industrial capital or increase the velocity of circulation. In exchange for this, circulatory servicesarefundedoutofsurplusvaluegeneratedelsewhere.
The general law is that all costs of circulation which arise only from changes in the forms of commoditiesdonotaddtotheirvalue.Theyaremerelyexpensesincurredintherealisationof thevalueorinitsconversionfromoneformintoanother.Thecapitalspenttomeetthesecosts (including the labour under its control) belongs among the faux frais of capitalist production. They must be replaced from the surplusproduct and constitute, as far as the entire capitalist class is concerned, adeduction from the surplusvalue or surplusproduct, just as thetime the labourerneedsforthepurchaseofhismeansofsubsistenceislosttime.(ibid,p.152;emphasisin original).

Insofarascirculatoryactivitiesmightsuperficiallyappeartotransformacommodityorits usevalue,thisisonlyintermsofitsownership(i.e.,thecirculationoftitlestotheusevalue) butnotacommoditysusevalue.Serviceactivitiesinthecirculatoryspheremayraisethe price of a commodity above its underlying value, creating a faade of valuecreation, but without actually creating any new value. For instance, marketing activities may allow a higher price to be realized in the sale of these commodities than would otherwise be the case,butdonotthemselvestransformthecommoditiesinavaluecreatingprocess. TheclassificationofcirculatoryservicesisrelativelystraightforwardinaMarxianschema,as istheirrelationshiptotheproductionofsurplusvalue.Marxdoesdealwiththeseactivities quitecomprehensively(especiallyinVolume2ofCapital),althoughhedoesnotapproach themaspartofaservicessectorassuch.

15

PRODUCTIVETRANSPORTANDSTORAGE

In addition to the pure or genuine circulation costs discussed above, Marx identifies two additional types of costs of circulation: transport costs and costs of storage. As already discussed, pure circulation costs facilitate the transformation of value into or between its money and commodity forms, without any new value being added or any surplusvalue beinggenerated.Inthecaseofproductivetransportthevalueofcommoditiesincreasesas new surplusvalue is created, while storage preserves the value that has already been createdandwhichwouldotherwisediminish. Marx deals with the nature of transportation and its role in the circuit of capital in the secondvolumeofCapital.Theraisondtreofthetransportsectoristhattheusevalueof thingsismaterialisedonlyintheirconsumption,andtheirconsumptionmaynecessitatea changeoflocationofthesethings,hencemayrequireanadditionalprocessofproduction, in the transport industry. (Marx, 1885, p.153). Transport of commodities is a productive process in which surplusvalue is generated, as the productive capital invested in this industryimpartsvaluetothetransportedproducts,partlybytransferringvaluethroughthe labourperformedintransport(ibid).Accordingly,someofthelabouremployedintransport isproductive. Transport of commodities prior to their sale, although nominally part of the circulatory phase, is thus actually a continuation of production in the sphere of circulation. The transportindustryformsontheonehandanindependentbranchofproductionandthusa separate sphere of investment of productive capital. On the other hand its distinguishing featureisthatitappearsasacontinuationofaprocessofproductionwithintheprocessof circulationandfortheprocessofcirculation.(ibid,p.155;emphasisinoriginal). Adistinctivefeatureoftransportisthattheusefuleffectoftransportisinseparablefrom theproductiveprocess,withnoseparatecommoditybeingproduced:
what the transport industry sells is change of location. The useful effect is inseparably connected with the process of transportation, i.e., the productive process of the transport industry. Men and goods travel together with the means of transportation, and this travelling, thislocomotion,constitutestheprocessofproductioneffectedbythesemeans.Theusefuleffect can be consumed only during this process of production. It does not exist as a utility different

16

from this process, a usething which does not function as an article of commerce, does not circulateasacommodity,untilafterithasbeenproduced.(ibid,p.54)

Nevertheless, this useful effect has some properties in common with a commodity, in termsofthedeterminationofitsexchangevalueaswellasintermsofwhathappenstoits valueonceitisconsumed: Buttheexchangevalueofthisusefuleffectisdetermined,likethatofanyothercommodity, by the value of the elements of production (labourpower and means of production) consumed in it plus the surplusvalue created by the surpluslabour of the labourers employed in transportation. This useful effect also entertains the very same relations to consumptionthatothercommoditiesdo.Ifitisconsumedindividuallyitsvaluedisappears duringitsconsumption;ifitisconsumedproductivelysoastoconstitutebyitselfastagein the production of the commodities being transported, its value is transferred as an additionalvaluetothecommodityitself.(ibid). Marxsetsoutaspecificformulaofthecircuitofcapitalapplyingtothetransportindustry,
M C

{ }...P M ,where M representstheconvertedformoftheusefuleffectcreated

LP MP

duringtheprocessofproduction.Henotesthatitistheprocessofproductionitselfthatis paidforandconsumed,notaproductseparateanddistinctfromit(ibid). Marx also deals with storage in Volume 2 of Capital. He notes that the abidance of the commoditycapitalasacommoditysupplyinthemarketrequiresbuildings,stores,storage places, warehouses, in other words, an expenditure of constant capital; furthermore the payment of labourpower for placing the commodities in storage (ibid, p.141). While storage shares some characteristics with transport, it differs in that the value of the commoditiesbeingstoreddoesnotincrease.10 Ontheonehand,storagecostssharethesamecharacterasstandardcostsofcirculationin that they are necessitated merely by the particular social form of the production process (i.e., are due only to the fact that the product is brought forth as a commodity and must therefore undergo the transformation into money) (ibid, p.142). But on the other hand,
10

Exceptincaseswherewhatappearstobestorageisactuallytransformativeinnature,suchasintheaging ofwines.Thisaspectofstoragecanactuallybeconsideredafullpartoftheproductionprocessofthewine commodityandnotstorageinstrictusensu.

17

storagecostsdifferfromthepure/genuinecostsofcirculationinthattheirpurposeisnota changeintheformofthevalue,butthepreservationofthevalueexistinginthecommodity asaproduct,autility,andwhichcannotbepreservedinanyotherwaythanbypreserving theproduct,theusevalue,itself(ibid,p.142). The following passage brings out this dual character of storage activities. Storage is unproductive in that it needs to be funded out of the surplusvalue generated elsewhere, yetitdoesenterintothevalueofthecommoditiesbeingstored:
[thecostsofstorage]entertoacertainextentintothevalueofcommodities,i.e.,theyincrease thepricesof commodities.Atalleventsthecapitalandlabourpowerwhichservetheneedof preserving and storing the commoditysupply are withdrawn from the direct process of production. On the other hand the capitals thus employed, including labourpower as a constituent of capital, must be replaced out of the social product. Their expenditure has thereforetheeffectofdiminishingtheproductivepoweroflabour,sothatagreateramountof capital and labour is required to obtain a particular useful effect. They are unproductive costs. (ibid,pp.1412;emphasisinoriginal).

Unlike transport, with storage the usevalue [of the commodity] is neither raised nor increased here; on the contrary, it diminishes (ibid, p.142) and no new surplusvalue is created. However, the value already created is preserved as far as possible in that the attenuationofthecommoditysusevalueisminimisedthroughthestorageprocess.Despite thefactthatvaluedoesnotincreasethroughstorage,newlabour,materialisedandliving, is added (ibid). Storage is a special case in that productive labour is engaged in it and surplusvalueisgenerated,butthevalueofthecommoditybeingstoreddoesnotincrease:
Inasmuch as labourprocesses are necessary in this stage, they add to the cost of the raw material, etc., but are productive labour and produce surplusvalue, because a part of this labour, like of all other wagelabour, is not paid for. The normal interruptions of the entire processofproduction,theintermissionsduringwhichtheproductivecapitaldoesnotfunction, createneithervaluenorsurplusvalue.(ibid,p.125).

Marxsapproachtostorage,asdiscussedabove,isbasedonthepremisethatthevalueof commoditiesdoesnotrisethroughstorage,butratherthatthediminutionoftheirvalueis lesswhentheyarestoredthanwouldotherwisebethecase.Aninterestingissuethatarises in the current period is whether there are cases in which the value of commodities can actually increase through storage, in ways which would not have been possible in Marxs time. For instance, technology now allows for certain types of fresh produce to be cold

18

storedoverextendedperiodsandsoldatahigherpricethanwouldinitiallyhavebeenthe case, or may even allow for the realization of the surplus valueembodied in the commodities when this might not otherwise have been the case (e.g., because of excess supplyinaparticularseason).Thiscouldbeconsideredanalogoustotheproductiveaspect oftransport,inthesensethatthetransformationofcommoditiesinspacethatisfacilitated by productive transport creates surplusvalue and similarly the transformation of commodities in time that is facilitated by certain types of storage could be considered productiveofsurplusvalue. In addition to the storage of commodities between the points of production and sale, storage plays a further role in the continuity and seamless flow of the circuit of capital in termsofthestorageofmeansofproduction.Partofproductivecapitalislatentasitisheld readyforproduction.Thefallownessofthisportionofcapitalisitselfapreconditionforthe uninterruptedflowoftheproductiveprocess,althoughthiscapitalcreatesneitherproducts norvalue(whileinitslatentform).Thebuildings,apparatus,etc.,necessaryforthestorage of the productive supply (latent capital) are conditions of the productive process and therefore constitute component parts in the preliminary stage (ibid, p.125). In this sense storage,liketransport,mightbeconsideredasmomentsinanextendedproductiveprocess; yet unlike in production no commodities areproduced and in the case of storage no new surplusvalueisgenerated. Marxsapproachtostorage,asdiscussedabove,isbasedonthepremisethatthevalueof commoditiesdoesnotrisethroughstorage,butratherthatthediminutionoftheirvalueis lesswhentheyarestoredthanwouldotherwisebethecase.Aninterestingissuethatarises in the current period is whether there are cases in which the value of commodities can actually increase through storage, in ways which would not have been possible in Marxs time. For instance, technology now allows for certain types of fresh produce to be cold storedoverextendedperiodsandsoldatahigherpricethanwouldinitiallyhavebeenthe case, or may even allow for the realization of the surplus valueembodied in the commodities when this might not otherwise have been the case (e.g., because of excess supplyinaparticularseason).Thiscouldbeconsideredanalogoustotheproductiveaspect oftransport,inthesensethatthetransformationofcommoditiesinspacethatisfacilitated by productive transport creates surplusvalue and similarly the transformation of 19

commodities in time that is facilitated by certain types of storage could be considered productiveofsurplusvalue.

NONCAPITALISTICSERVICES

Aswithothersectors,servicescanalsobeprovidedonanoncapitalisticbasis.Thiscategory tendstobemuchmoresignificantinthecaseofservicesthanforanyothersector(withan exceptionofagricultureinsomedevelopingcountries).Theseservicesmaybecirculatoryor maydeliverusevalues.Butthedistinguishingfeatureofthiscategoryofservicesisthatthey areprovidedagainstrevenueratherthanagainstcapital. Workersengagedinnoncapitalisticservicesareunproductive.Inthecasewherepersonal services are provided directly by an individual rather than by a worker employed in a serviceprovidingcapitalistfirm,theindividualdoesnotgeneratesurplusvalueandispaid by the purchaser of the service in a simple flow of revenue. In meeting the needs of the purchaser of his services, the worker depletes rather than expands the mass of surplus value.Themoneylaidouttopayfortheserviceisrevenue,notcapital. One of the major categories of noncapitalistic services is unpaid household labour.11 A secondempiricallysignificantcategoryofnoncapitalistservicesarepublicservicessuchas educationorhealthcarethatareprovidedbythestate(orotherinstitutions)onanotfor profitbasis.Athirdmajortypeofnoncapitalisticservicesarethoseinwhichanindividualis paidinexchangeforperformingapersonalservice,withoutbeingemployedinacapitalistic enterprise. For example, a domestic servant hired directly by a household without any capitalist intermediary.This third category which we term here personal services12 is the central focus of Marxs treatment of services, as will be discussed below. All of these activitiescreateusevaluesbutnosurplusvalue,andnoneofthelabourengagedinthemis productive.
We do not analyse unpaid household labour here, but for Marxian analyses of household labour see, for instance, Benston (1969), Kuhn and Wolpe (1978), Hennessy and Ingraham (1997), Collins and Gimenez (1990), Vogel (1983), Delphy (1984), Fox (1980), Gardiner (1975), Malos (1995), Gerstein (1973), Menon (1982),Fraadetal(1994),Meulenbelt(1978),andSeccombe(1974). Thisdoesnothavethesamemeaningaspersonalservicesinnationalaccounts,whichareasubsectorof other community, social, and personal services and have a limited and specific meaning. Here personal servicesrefertoservicesexchangedagainstrevenueratherthanagainstcapital.
12 11

20

Grundrisse contains a relatively extensive discussion of services, focussing on personal services that are provided on a noncapitalist basis. This category was a significant component of total services during Marxs time. Marx states that the exchange of objectifiedlabourforlivinglabourdoesnotyetconstituteeithercapitalononesideorwage labourontheother.Theentireclassofsocalledservicesfromthebootblackuptotheking falls into this category (Marx, 1857, p.465; emphasis in original). Such services may nominallyinvolvethesameactivitiesascertaincommodityproducingservices,yetherethe services are remunerated out of revenue rather than from capital laid out in a capitalist circuitofcapital. Marxdiscussespersonalservicesaspartoftherelationofsimplecirculation,whichinthis context is essentially the purchase of personal services which are rendered on a non capitalistbasis.13TheseareactivitiesinwhichAexchangesavalueormoney,i.e.objectified labour,inordertoobtainaservicefromB,i.e.livinglabour.Here,
both[Aand B]infactexchangeonlyusevalueswithoneanother;oneexchangesnecessaries, theotherlabour,aservicewhichtheotherwantstoconsume,eitherdirectlypersonalservice orhefurnisheshimthematerialetc.fromwhich,withhislabour,withtheobjectificationofhis labour,hemakesausevalue,ausevaluedesignedforAsconsumption.(ibid,p.465).

Marx states clearly that labour as mere performance of services for the satisfaction of immediate needs has nothing whatever to do with capital, since that is not capitals concern. (ibid, p.272). He illustrates this with an example of a woodcutter hired as an individualtoprovideapersonalservicetoacapitalistinhiscapacityasaconsumer:
Ifacapitalisthiresawoodcuttertochopwoodtoroasthismuttonover,thennotonlydoesthe woodcutterrelatetothecapitalist,butalsothecapitalisttothewoodcutter,intherelationof simple exchange. The woodcutter gives him his service, a use value, which does not increase capital;rather,capitalconsumesitselfinit;andthecapitalistgiveshimanothercommodityforit intheformofmoney.(ibid).

InthiscontextMarxalsodiscussesasecondtypeofserviceworkers,foundinperiodsofthedissolutionof prebourgeoisrelations.Thesearefreeworkerswhoseservicesareboughtforpurposesnotofconsumption, butofproduction;but,firstly,evenifnotonalargescale,fortheproductiononlyofdirectusevalues,notof values;andsecondly,ifanoblemane.g.bringsthefreeworkertogetherwithhisserfs,evenifheresellspart oftheworkersproduct,andthefreeworkerthuscreatesvalueforhim,thenthisexchangetakesplaceonly forthesuperfluous[product]andonlyforthesakeofsuperfluity,forluxuryconsumption,isthusatbottom onlyaveiledpurchaseofalienlabourforimmediateconsumptionorasusevalue.(ibid,p.469).Wedonot dwellonthiscategoryofserviceworkersgiventheirhistoricalandinstitutionalspecificity.

13

21

Hegeneralisessucharelationshiptoallservicesfromwhoretopopewhicharepurchased fortheirusevalueandareexchangedagainstrevenueratherthancapital.Nocapitalislaid out,nosurplusvalueisgenerated,andalllabourengagedinsuchservicesisunproductive.

The same relation holds for all services which workers exchange directly for the money of otherpersons,andwhichareconsumedbythesepersons.Thisisconsumptionofrevenue, which,assuch,alwaysfallswithinsimplecirculation;itisnotconsumptionofcapital.Since oneofthecontractingpartiesdoesnotconfronttheotherasacapitalist,thisperformance ofaservicecannotfallunderthecategoryofproductivelabour.Fromwhoretopope,there isamassofsuchrabble. Butthehonestandworkinglumpenproletariatbelongshereas well; e.g. the great mob of porters etc. who render service in seaport cities etc. He who represents money in this relation demands the service only for its use value, which immediately vanishes for him; but the porter demands money, and since the party with moneyisconcernedwiththecommodityandthepartywiththecommodity,withmoney,it followsthattheyrepresenttooneanothernomorethanthetwosidesofsimplecirculation. (ibid)

Marx castigates as horsepiss the arguments from bourgeois economists that regard any labourthatinsomewayindirectlycontributestosurplusvalueasbeingproductive.
A.Smithwas essentiallycorrectwithhis productiveand unproductivelabour,correctfromthe standpointofbourgeoiseconomy.Whattheothereconomistsadvanceagainstitiseitherhorse piss,namelythateveryactionafterallactsuponsomething,thusconfusionoftheproductin itsnaturalandinitseconomicsense;sothatthepickpocketbecomesaproductiveworkertoo, sinceheindirectlyproducesbooksoncriminallaw(thisreasoningatleastascorrectascallinga judge a productive worker because he protects from theft). Or the modern economists have turnedthemselvesintosuchsycophantsofthebourgeoisthattheywanttodemonstratetothe latterthatitisproductivelabourwhensomebodypickstheliceoutofhishair,orstrokeshistail, becauseforexamplethelatteractivitywillmakehisfatheadblockheadclearerthenextday intheoffice.(ibid;emphasisinoriginal).

Marxdeliberatesonexamplesofpersonalservicessuchasawanderingtailorwhoistaken intoapeasantshouseinordertomakeclotheswithmaterialthatthepeasantprovides,or adoctorwhoispaidtodealwithhealthproblems.Hearguesthatthereisnorealdifference inthisrespectbetweenthepurchaseoftheservicesoroftheendproducts,andwequote atsomelength:

ThemanwhotakestheclothIsuppliedtohimandmakesmeanarticleofclothingoutofitgives me a use value. But instead of giving it directly in objective form, he gives it in the form of activity.Igivehimacompletedusevalue;hecompletesanotherforme.Thedifferencebetween previous,objectifiedlabourandliving,presentlabourhereappearsasamerelyformaldifference betweenthedifferenttensesoflabour,atonetimeintheperfectandatanotherinthepresent. Itappearsinfactasamerelyformaldifference,adifferencemediatedbydivisionoflabourand

22

byexchange,whetherBhimselfobtainsthenecessariesonwhichhehastosubsistorwhether heobtainsthemfromAand,insteadofproducingthenecessarieshimself,producesanarticleof clothing,inexchangeforwhichheobtainsthemfromA.Inbothcaseshecantakepossessionof theusevaluespossessedbyAonlybygivinghimanequivalentforit;which,inthelastanalysis, alwaysresolvesitselfinto hisownlivinglabour,regardless oftheobjectiveform itmayadopt, whetherbeforetheexchangeisconcluded,orasaconsequenceofit.Now,thearticleofclothing notonlycontainsaspecific,formgivinglabouraspecificform of usefulnessimpartedtothe clothbythemovementoflabourbutitalsocontainsaspecific,formgivinglabouraspecific form of usefulness imparted to the cloth by the movement of labour but it contains also a certainquantityoflabourhencenotonlyusevalue,butvaluegenerally,valueassuch.(ibid, pp.4656).

Where the services are purchased for the fulfilment of a personal need and not for the purposes of generating surplusvalue, what is relevant for the purchaser is the usevalue thatisdelivereddirectlybytheservice.Nonewvalueisgeneratedinthecommissionofthe service.Theusevalueismerelyconsumedastheserviceitselfisconsumed,withnosurplus valueremainingbehind.(ibid,p.466).
ButthisvaluedoesnotexistforA,sinceheconsumesthearticle,andisnotaclothesdealer.He has therefore bought the labour not as valuepositing labour, but as an activity which creates utility, use value. In the case of personal services, this use value is consumed as such without making the transition from the form of movement [Bewegung] into the form of the object [Sache].(ibid).

Personal services may superficially involve the same types of activities as certain commodityproducingservices.However,theyareremuneratedoutofrevenueratherthan fromcapitallaidoutinacapitalistcircuitofcapitalinordertogeneratesurplusvalue.
...even given that A pays money for the service, this is not atransformation of his money into capital,butratherthepositingofhismoneyasmeremediumofcirculation,inordertoobtainan objectforconsumption,aspecificusevalue.Thisactisforthatreasonnotanactwhichproduces wealth,buttheopposite,onewhichconsumeswealthThemoneywhichAhereexchangesfor livinglabourserviceinkind,orserviceobjectifiedinathing,isnotcapitalbutrevenue,money asamediumofcirculationinordertoobtainusevalue,moneyExchangeofmoneyasrevenue, as a mere medium of circulation, for living labour, can never posit money as capital, nor, therefore,labouraswagelabourintheeconomicsense.(ibid;emphasisinoriginal).

Marxgoesontogeneralisethischaracterisationtoallpersonalservicesthatareexchanged forrevenue:
Inthebourgeoissocietyitself,allexchangeofpersonalservices for revenueincludinglabour for personal consumption, cooking sewing., garden work etc., up to and including all of the unproductiveclasses,civilservants,physicians,lawyers,scholarsetc.belongsunderthisrubric, withinthiscategory[ofexchangeofservicesnotforcapitalbutforrevenue].Allmenialservants

23

etc.bymeansoftheirservicesoftencoercedalltheseworkers,fromtheleasttothehighest, obtain for themselves a share of the surplus product, of the capitalists revenue. (ibid, p.468; emphasisinoriginal).

ThisdiscussionofpersonalservicesinGrundrissepertainsonlytopersonalservicesprovided on a noncapitalist basis, where an individual exchanges his or her services directly for revenue.Itdoesnotapplytothecaseinwhichacapitalistlaysoutcapitaltoemploywage labourers who provide personal services for which the capitalist is paid and appropriates surplusvalue.Thelatterformofactivitywouldbeacapitalistcommodityproducingservice, as discussed earlier. For instance, Marxs discussion of personal services would apply to a maid employed directly by a household, but would not apply to someone employed by a domestic service agency that bills the household and pays the wages of the maid (even if the two maids perform identical physical tasks). A service commodity is produced and surplusvaluegeneratedinthelattercasebutnotintheformer.

CONCLUSION

SectorsarenottheunitsofanalysisinMarxianeconomics.Whatismostfundamentaltoa Marxian classification of economic activities is the relationship of an activity to the production, realization, and appropriation of surplusvalue. This relationship can be understood in terms of an activitys location in the circuit of capital, and specifically as to whetherornotsurplusvalueisdirectlyproducedintheactivity.MarxianandnonMarxian typologicalapproachesalsodifferepistemologically,inthesensethatinaMarxianapproach an activity cannot necessarily be classified simply by observing it, given that the relevant characteristicsoftheactivityaretypicallynotphenomenologicallyapparent. The difference between a Marxian and a nonMarxian approach to classifying activities comes through particularly strongly in the case of services, as this sector includes completely different types of activities in Marxian terms. Whereas the common denominator of the services sector might be the inseparability of production and consumption,fromaMarxianapproachsomeoftheactivitiesincludedinthissectordonot even produce commodities at all. In terms of the characteristics most important from a Marxianstandpointspecifically,thelocationofanactivityinthecircuitofcapitalandthe relationship of the activity to the production of surplusvalue what is common to the 24

activities included in the services sector is less significant than the differences between theseactivities.Thenotionofaservicessectoristhusnotaparticularlyusefulorrelevant analyticalconstructinaMarxianapproach. This clarity is important not only for typological reasons, but from a broader analytical perspective in terms of understanding sectoral structure and the implications of changes therein. For instance, deindustrialisation referring to a decline in the share of manufacturingintheeconomy,typicallyashifttowardsservicesisregardedinthenon Marxianheterodoxliterature(especiallyalaKaldor)asbeinglikelytohavenegativeeffects on economic growth. In a Marxian approach, taking account of the heterogeneity of the services sector implies that a more nuanced approach is needed than simply treating servicesasasomewhatunitarysector,asashifttowardscommodityproducingservicesis likely to have different implications from a shift towards circulatory services or non commodityproducingpersonalservices.Similarly,intermsofthehypeaboutthepotential of the services sector to drive growth, referred to at the beginning of this article, from a Marxian angle a more complex approach would be needed that takes account of the heterogeneityofservices.

25

REFERENCES Barclay, W. and Stengel, M. (1975) Surplus and surplus value Review of Radical Political Economics,7(4):4864. Benston, M. (1969)The political economy of women's liberationMonthly Review, 21(4): 1327. Collins,J.andGimenez,M.(eds.)(1990)WorkWithoutWages,NewYork:SUNYPress. Daniels,P.W.(1993)ServiceIndustriesintheWorldEconomy,Oxford:Blackwell. Delphy, C. (1984) Close to Home: A Materialist Analysis of Women's Oppression, London: Hutchinson. Fine,B.andHarris,L.(1979)RereadingCapital,London:Macmillan. Fine,B.(1989)MarxsCapital(3rdedn.),London:Macmillan. Fox,B.(ed.)(1980)HiddenintheHousehold:Women'sDomesticLabourUnderCapitalism, Toronto:Women'sEducationalPress. Fraad,H.,Resnick,S.andWolff,R.(1994)BringingitallHome:Class,Gender,andPowerin theModernHousehold,London:PlutoPress. Gardiner,J.(1975)Women'sdomesticlabourNewLeftReview,89(1):4758. Gershuny, J. and Miles, I. (1983) The New Services Economy: The Transformation of EmploymentinIndustrialSocieties,London:Pinter. Gerstein,I.(1973)DomesticworkandcapitalismRadicalAmerica,7(45):10128. Harcourt, G.C. and Kerr, P.M. (2002) Marx, Karl Heinrich, 18181883 In Warner, M. (ed.) International Encyclopedia of Business and Management, Volume 5 (2nd edn.), London: ThomsonLearning. Harvey,D.(1999)LimitstoCapital,London:Verso. Hennessy, R. and Ingraham, C. (eds.) (1997) Materialist Feminism: A Reader in Class, Difference,andWomen'sLives,NewYork:Routledge. Hirsch, S. (1989) Services and service intensityin international tradeWeltwirtschaftliches Archive125:4560. Houston,D.(1997)Productiveunproductivelabor:restinpeaceReviewofRadicalPolitical Economics,29(1):131147.

26

Hunt, E. (1979) The categories of productive and unproductive laborin Marxisteconomic theoryScienceandSociety,43(3):303325. Katouzian, M.A. (1970) The development of the service sector: a new approach Oxford EconomicPapers,NewSeries,22(3):362382. Kuhn, A. and Wolpe, A. (eds) (1978) Feminism and Materialism: Women and Modes of Production,London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul. Kuznets,S.(1965)EconomicGrowthandStructure:SelectedEssays,London:Heinemann. Laibman, D. (1999) Productive and unproductive labor: a comment Review of Radical PoliticalEconomics,31(2):6173. Malos,E.(ed.)(1995)ThePoliticsofHousework(3rdedn.),Cheltenham:NewClarionPress. Mandel,E.(1976)IntroductionInMarx,K.Capital:ACritiqueofPoliticalEconomy,Volume 1,London:Penguin. Marx,K.(1857)Grundrisse,London:Penguin,1973. Marx,K.(1861)TheoriesofSurplusValue,Part1,London:Lawrence&Wishart,1956. Marx,K.(1867)Capital:ACritiqueofPoliticalEconomy,Volume1,London:Penguin,1976. Marx, K. (1885) Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 2, Moscow: Progress Publishers,1986. Marx, K. (1894) Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 3, London: Lawrence & Wishart,1984. Menon,U.(1982)WomenandhouseholdlabourSocialScientist,10(7):3042. Meulenbelt, A. (1978) On the political economy of domestic laborQuest: A Feminist Quarterly,4(2):1831. Murray,P.(1998)BeyondthecommerceandindustrypictureofCapitalInArthur,C.and Reuten, G. (eds.) The Circulation of Capital: Essays on Volume Two of Marxs Capital, London:Macmillan. Resnick, S. and Wolff, R. (1987) Economics: Marxian versus Neoclassical, Baltimore: Johns HopkinsUniversityPress. Sabolo,M.Y.(1975)TheServiceIndustries,Geneva:InternationalLabourOrganisation. Seccombe, W. (1974)The housewife and her labor under capitalismNew Left Review, 83(1):324.

27

Shaikh,A.andTonak,E.A.(1994)MeasuringtheWealthofNations:ThePoliticalEconomyof NationalAccounts,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. UnitedNations(1989)ReportoftheSNAExpertGroupMeetingonProductionAccounts andInputOutputTables,Vienna,2130March1988 http://unstats.un.org/unsd/sna1993/history/EGM_production_accts_and_IO.pdf. United Nations Department for Economic and Social Affairs Statistics Division (1999) HandbookofInputoutputTableCompilationandAnalysisStudiesinMethodsSeriesF,no. 74.NewYork:UnitedNations. UnitedNations(2001)SystemofNationalAccounts1993Geneva:UnitedNations. Vogel, L. (1984) Marxism and the Oppression of Women: Toward a Unitary Theory, New Brunswick:RutgersUniversityPress.

28