Aside from whether Shane's response was catechismic or not, it was wrong. For what it is worth, the distinction between "productive" and "unproductive" labour refers to the production of "surplus value", not of final consumer goods -- the latter would be a distinction more appropriate to the calculation of the national income. Kuznets, for example, made the distinction between intermediate goods and final consumption goods (Adam Smith had a productive/unproductive distinction that can be charitably ignored as an understandable error of misplaced concreteness). Furthermore, "unproductive labour" is not a pejorative, although it is often used as such, even by Marx, who turns up his nose at "servile" labour, toadies, etc.
Sean makes a point that I want to reiterate, emphasize and challenge, though: "there are obviously changes to the way labor works today which the concept should be flexible enough to understand..." Yes and no. The concept is NOT flexible enough to understand those changes. On the contrary it is DEFINITE enough to enable us to understand when actuality has surpassed the concept... and that was Marx's intention! (or at least it is MY interpretation of Marx's intention, as he expressed it in the so-called "fragment on machines" in the Grundrisse). The productive/unproductive distinction, along with surplus value itself has to do not with some underlying "reality" but with a historically-specific "system of thought". The system of thought changes but the old distinctions linger on as rituals. On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Sean Andrews <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Shane Mage <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > I think Doug's point was: and then what. You get conceptual clarity > and then what do you do with it? In this case, I think you're > splitting hairs in the wrong way. Ultimately the relationship between > capital and labor has less to do with whether the labor is > "unproductive" in the sense that it produces an actual widget. In the > case of IBM, there are still workers who are producing value for them > - it may be "immaterial value" or it may be a service to other > businesses. I met one of these consultants - a friend of a friend - > who is some sort of hybrid of a development worker (she had been doing > pro bono consulting in China), market researcher, and intelligence > gatherer, along with pushing a bunch of buttons on a typing machine of > some kind or other to produce something other people will pay for. In > her case, and in the case of all the other people working for IBM in > this capacity, the relationship is not all that mysterious: IBM makes > more money off of them than they are paid. > > The difference here is that there may be parts of her job that could > be automated or taken over by a software program. And, just as in the > so called productivity boom of the 1990s, you can be sure that any > gains of productivity - even those that she herself devises - will be > pocketed by the corporation rather than the worker. Does it really > matter whether there is productive labor in the classical Marxist > sense involved? The relationship between capital and labor remains > relatively the same. > > I'm also struck by the anachronism of the working day in this context. > For what it really does is push the worker to exploit themselves > further - maybe take on some other freelance gigs or otherwise > supplement their precarious existence as a contract consultant that > can be dismissed at will. In this way, they are forced to exploit > themselves - likely for a longer part of the day than they would need > to were they paid in full for all the value they provide to IBM. > > I am all for thinking about the real, productive labor as being the > core of most economic activity - and normally I would cringe at the > use of terms like immaterial labor as if it is something so unique and > unprecedented. But in this case, I think it is useful to have a > clarity of the stakes of the concept. Relative surplus value > certainly has a very specific meaning in Capital, but there are > obviously changes to the way labor works today which the concept > should be flexible enough to understand. > > The purpose of the concept was to illustrate the productivity of labor > and the way the laborer is taken advantage of by the owner of capital; > her productivity doesn't give her the promised freedom of modernity: > instead it just gives her a different brand of oppression - at the > hands of the people who her labor enriches. That should be the reason > we talk about these concepts: to show the alternative reality of > capitalism and inspire people to work against it as a system. > Otherwise, Marx might just be that dead dog you speak of. > > I'm sure there is a better way of explaining this in Marx's terms, but > carving out the bulk of the labor of the industrialized world as > irrelevant to his most basic concepts is the best way to ensure his > most basic concepts are irrelevant. > > sean > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Cheers, Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
