====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
It doesn't matter. You have to set the context for the definition and then use it. Yards of denim weaved per worker, or, yards of demin per weaved per automatic weaving machine is valid if on is consistent. In agriculture, we use tons of wheat per acre and labor hardly enters into it. The Russians discussed productivity of *material* per worker in many discussions after the Revolution. I agree with Shane (if I understand him), however, that one talks in *material products produced on average per unit of labor*. The capitalists attach a monetary value to this, but only for the bottom line. I've seen literally dozens of reports in the energy industry that *never* talk a monetary value (because it's impossible as prices fluxuate). David S. writes: "Productivity is anything but a bogus measure from Marx's point of view. His analysis of capitalism focuses precisely upon the bourgeoisie's need to boost the productivity of labor by expelling wage-labor from production and substituting objectified, accumulated labor-- i.e machinery, technology-- in its stead. Marx identifies this as the extraction of relative surplus value and it form the basis for the valorisation process of industrial capitalism." Marx is only describing the key aspect of the dynamic of capitalist exploitation, is he not? Throughout his writings he talks about that physical economy of accumulated machinery and technology as also being "progressive" *precisely* because it can, under socialism, increase humanity's wealth. He is talking productivity. When Trotsky and other Bolsheviks talked about the utter poverty of the Russian workers state you think he was talking about surplus value or monetary value *at all*??? I think some are overly formal on definitions. Productivity is a very useful and correct term to describe the obvious vernacular use of this expression to see how much stuff workers, groups of workers, the working class can produce in a given period of time. The USSR in large part was *inefficient* (perhaps another revisionist term, folks?) in no small part because they never knew the true *cost* of any commodity being produced, how much labor power was used, etc: only gross output. Is this "Marxist"? DW ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
