> Mike Ballard, > > > > In the capitalist division of labour, what is "productive" labour at the > micro level is not necessarily productive at the macro-level, since the > labour that creates profit for its employer may not be a net addition to > the > total mass of new surplus value generated (because it does not create a net > new addition to the stock of new commodities produced). All sorts of things > are traded for profit, but just because that is so, does not automatically > mean that new value comes out of it. > J,
So, within the gigantic division of labour in modern industrial capitalism, there are a lot of workers employed who are not directly engaged in say, putting the wheels on automobiles. Instead, they are engaged in making statistical reports and phone calls. But, these workers are a *necessary* part of the whole process of producing surplus value through socially *necessary* labour time embodied in automobiles for without them, the modern, industrial capitalist manufacturing plants could not function. My view is that Marx was aware of this; but would still argue that office work for wages, being a necessary function in the production of cars in a capitalist economy, would be productive labour. In fact, as Capital is/was essentially based on the social relation embodied in the wage system, all wage workers would be productive. Another way to look at it would be that capitalists don't hire unnecessary workers. Thanks for your patient explanations, Mike B) -- Wobbly times http://wobblytimes.blogspot.com.au/ _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
