On Jul 23, 2012, at 5:50 PM, Doug Henwood wrote:
On Jul 23, 2012, at 5:35 PM, Shane Mage wrote:
Relative surplus value has nothing to do with the case because the
services provided by IBM are *business* services not services sold to
consumers as consumable products. As such their costs are *overhead*
costs rather than payment for productive labor. Unproductive labor,
however necessary to the realization of surplus value, itself
produces
no surplus value absolute or relative.
I'm familiar with the catechistic response, but could you explain to
me what is gained by all this hairsplitting? I've recently seen
people use this style of thought to argue that the neoliberal era
brought no boom, and that the rise in profitability since the early
1980s is a sham once you perform the proper adjustments, even though
this would be news to a very flush capitalist class. Aside from
that, what do these distinctions do for you?
They make conceptual clarity possible. Marx went to very great length
to show the relationships among value, capital, and surplus value. If
Marx is nothing but a dead dog his conceptual apparatus can be treated
as nonsense, and if that is your view you've a right to natter about
"catechistic responses." But it was Charles, not you, who introduced
the concept of relative surplus value--and he has the right to a
serious reply.
Shane Mage
This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
kindling in measures and going out in measures.
Herakleitos of Ephesos
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
