Jim Writes: I'm afraid that the whole discussion of unproductive labor in Marx is a cul-de-sac. Unproductive labor doesn't produce surplus-value directly. But that nice certainty goes away when "indirectly productive" labor (cf. Jim O'Connor) is introduced. It's also unclear what the theoretical use of unproductive labor is...
I write: I think the important point is that unproductive labour is necessary to REALIZE surplus value, not to produce it. It also completely destroys the whole concept of marginal productivity central to the neoclassical ideology since, what is the marginal productivity of a clerical worker in an advertising agency? Paul P -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.2/357 - Release Date: 6/6/06
