Re: [OPE-L] "parasitism" of the service sector?

From: Jerry Levy (jerry_levy@VERIZON.NET)
Date: Sun Jan 20 2008 - 07:13:53 EST

The RUPE article does not mention surplus-value, just the fact that the *material* surplus from agriculture and industry must support the service sector. There is nothing controversial about this.

Hi Dave Z:

What you accept as a truism can be quite problematic when placed within the context of the international division of labour.  Note, for instance, that the growth of some service sector jobs in India (e.g. call centers) is driven in large part by policies of major transnational corporations. It is not the wealth generated in industry and agriculture in India which causes the additional demand for jobs in call centers. Quite the reverse: it is the poor performance of those sectors (and the significant pool of skilled IT workers - created largely as a consequence of investment in public education by the state) which (coupled with the advances in IT outside of India) leads to an increase in the demand for labour-power in this service occupation. [NB: State financing for technical colleges also does not have to be internal and rest on the S produced in domestic industry and agriculture: it can rest, instead, on borrowing from international lending agencies.)

In solidarity, Jerry

PS: what policy proposals do you favor for dealing with the "problem" of  workers who [you believe] are "parasitic"?

In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 31 2008 - 00:00:06 EST