Skip to content

The Uber controversy reveals the rottenness of the taxi industry

Marxist Analysis · 2026-05-13

Core Argument

The article argues that the Uber controversy is not a clash between innovation and tradition, but a surface expression of deeper contradictions within capitalism. The central thesis is that both the traditional taxi industry and Uber represent different faces of the same system: one is a stagnant, quasi-monopolistic sector that has used licensing restrictions and political connections to extract super-profits from drivers; the other is a disruptive, technologically advanced firm that achieves its competitive edge by stripping away even the minimal protections that existed, reclassifying drivers as contractors to avoid benefits and insurance. The real conflict is not between workers and workers, or between progress and backwardness, but between two fractions of capital, with drivers on both sides bearing the costs. The article concludes that neither model serves working people, and that the only rational solution is the socialisation of transport under socialism.

Theoretical Grounding

The analysis draws on Marx's observations in Capital about the dual character of technological development under capitalism. It explicitly references Marx's account of workers rioting against more efficient weaving looms in Germany and Holland, using this to frame Uber's technology as simultaneously progressive in its efficiency and regressive in its social consequences — reducing the number of drivers needed, intensifying competition, and driving down wages. The article also deploys the Marxist theory of monopoly and concentration, arguing that capitalism's natural tendency is toward the centralisation of capital, not genuine competition or diversity. The taxi industry's licensing system is analysed as a form of artificial scarcity that inflates the price of permits and creates a layer of parasitic intermediaries — permit holders who extract rent from drivers without providing productive labour. This connects to Marx's distinction between productive and unproductive labour, and to the broader Marxist critique of monopoly capitalism as a fetter on technological progress. The analysis sits firmly within the classical Marxist tradition, rejecting both reformist solutions (regulating Uber) and petty-bourgeois nostalgia (defending the old taxi model), and instead calling for a systemic transformation.

Conjunctural Relevance

The article was written in early 2016, at the height of Uber's global expansion and the accompanying wave of protests by taxi drivers. It is situated in the aftermath of the 2008 global economic crisis, which had left labour markets across Europe and North America weakened, making precarious work like Uber driving attractive to students and underemployed workers. The article provides specific data points: Uber's valuation at over $40 billion; a 65 per cent decline in traditional taxi trips in San Francisco since 2012; 69 per cent of Quebec taxi drivers earning less than $20,000 per year; permit prices in Montreal rising from $25,000 in 1992 to over $230,000 by 2007; and interest rates on permit loans reaching 28 per cent in Toronto. It names specific companies — Coventry Connections in Ottawa, the Grossman family in Toronto — and exposes the concentration of permit ownership, including foreign investors in Florida and Israel. The article also notes the California Labour Commission's ruling that an Uber driver is an employee, not a contractor, a decision that was later overturned but which marked an early front in the legal battle over platform work. The conjuncture is one of stagnant wages, rising precarity, and the emergence of the "sharing economy" as capital's response to the crisis of profitability — a form of fictitious capital that extracts value by bypassing traditional regulatory frameworks and labour protections.

Where the Argument Continues

This article is an early intervention in what became a sustained Marxist analysis of the platform economy. The argument continues in several later In Defence of Marxism articles that examine the gig economy more broadly, including analyses of Deliveroo, Amazon Mechanical Turk, and the logistics sector. The theoretical framework developed here — the critique of the "sharing economy" as a misnomer for a new mode of exploitation — is expanded in IDOM pieces on the nature of platform capitalism and the tendency of the rate of profit to fall in the digital sector. The article's call for socialised public transport as an alternative is taken up in later pieces on transport strikes and municipalisation campaigns. Against the Stream episodes have also covered the Uber strikes and the organising efforts of gig workers, particularly the 2019 Uber and Lyft drivers' strike in the US. The broader Marxist texts that continue this argument include sections of Capital on the absolute and relative surplus population, and more recent Marxist work on logistics and the "platform rentier" model.

Connections

  • Marx, Capital Volume I: The chapter on machinery and large-scale industry, which discusses how technological development under capitalism creates a relative surplus population and intensifies exploitation.
  • Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism: For the theory of monopoly and the analysis of how finance capital concentrates control over entire sectors.
  • IDOM articles on the gig economy: Particularly those on Deliveroo, the "sharing economy" hoax, and the strikes by platform workers.
  • Against the Stream episodes on logistics and transport: For the concrete analysis of strikes and organising in the sector.
  • Baran and Sweezy, Monopoly Capital: For the theory of monopoly capitalism and the tendency toward stagnation, which underlies the analysis of the taxi industry's failure to innovate.

Key Quotes

  1. "Under capitalism, companies do not act in the interest of providing the best service to the customer, but rather in the interest of securing the maximum profit possible and a bigger market share. This means that once a company has a monopoly on the market, it does not need to invest to improve services, which would just mean unnecessary added costs."

  2. "In just five years, more than 30 per cent of all revenue in the taxi industry was found in the pockets of foreign investors."

  3. "The real losers are always the workers. Proponents of capitalism argue that their system encourages entrepreneurship and diversity of businesses. The reality is really quite different. Under capitalism, competition forces each company to crush others in order to grab a larger market share which is generally accomplished by maintaining lower operating costs and prices."

  4. "The development of technology therefore, always appears to workers as a threat to their jobs. This very phenomenon that was observed by Marx exists to this very day."

  5. "We should not have to choose between the two. Instead, we stand for a program of massive investment in public transportation, with the goal of providing a vast network of green, efficient, free and accessible public transit for all, at all times and with guaranteed, quality jobs for the workers who keep it running."

  6. "The natural development of capitalism is towards concentration. Rather than diversity, the capitalist system ends in monopoly."