I wrote:
> 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...
Tom wrote:
It is indeed a cul-de-sac but it is important to understand why. The productive/unproductive labor distinction relies on a boundary that desolves when you try to examine it closely. That elusive boundary, though, is a projection of the fetishism of commodities. It only makes sense, at a distance, with regard to "relationships between things" but if you want to pursue the distinction you are eventually forced to consider relationships between people. I would say that the theoretical value of the category of unproductive labor is to reintroduce the concept of fetishism of commodities at a later stage of the analysis of the logic of capital thus reaffirming that capital(ism) can never stand on the ground of its own logic but ultimately is founded on, masks and reproduces structures of political domination.
Please explain what you mean here.
This value of the concept of unproductive labor, in my opinion, is more clearly developed in Dilke's pamphlet, "The Source and Remedy of the National Difficulties..." One might say, at the risk of offending Marxists, that it is actually the exhaustive analysis of the "laws of motion" of capital that is the cul-de-sac (albeit an analytically "productive" one).
I dunno. It's hard to offend Marxists when the alternative point of view isn't even explained. In fact, it sometimes turns out that the "alternative" is part and parcel of one or another interpretation of Marxism (since Marxism isn't monolithic except to the monolithically-minded, i.e., the self-styled orthodox Marxists or orthodox anti-Marxists). But one can't tell if the perspective isn't explained or defended. paul phillips wrote:
I think the important point is that unproductive labour is necessary to REALIZE surplus value, not to produce it.
some of that unproductive labor serves that purpose (though not, say, labor in the FIRE sector or guard labor). I guess this point says that the concept of (un)productive labor helps us sketch the institutions of capitalism, with some labors producing and other labors helping to realize surplus-value. But what does this say about the laws of motion of the system, e.g., the nature and causes of economic crisis?
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?
the MP theory seems too tautological to be slain in this way. The advertising clerical worker (as part of a firm's overhead labor force) adds to the product over a long period of time (in small doses). Or, better, he or she is part of "transactions costs," something that NC economics seems to be able to absorb into the theory without pain. -- Jim Devine / "The crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career." -- Albert Einstein.
