Jim asks what practical importance can we attach to the productive/unproductive 
trope.  What
follows are vague thoughts rather than detailed analysis.

To begin with, my analysis of profit rates would take some account of some 
"social structure
of accumulation" norm.  So, for example, to the extent that new technology 
makes possible more
productive system that could allow for increasing profits, given the constant 
background
structure.  On the other hand, to the extent that profits increased because of 
an
intensification of exploitation or relaxation of environmental regulation, that 
would
represent more of a political rather than a productive force.

My intuition is that the former effects are less than the latter -- that 
normalized profit
rates may not be that much higher than in the 60s.

Even so, profits seem like they could be headed for a tumble, even if it might 
be a short
cyclical movement.

Second, I suspect we could make a subdivision of unproductive labor into that 
which only
serves in the capital and that which has some redeeming qualities.  
Advertising/spamming might
fall into the first category.  Retail clerks might fall into the second.  Of 
course, not
perfect division exists.  Retail clerks partially act like advertising agents 
and partially
provide helpful services for customers.

To the extent that, the increase in unproductive labor becomes more obvious, I 
think that it
might open up a line of communication to people who are still committed to 
capitalist
perception of the world.



On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:42:07AM -0700, Jim Devine wrote:
>
> But what does this say _in practice_ about the future of US or world
> capitalism? From an individual capitalist's perspective, it doesn't
> matter whether profits were produced by "his" workers or by other
> ones, does it? does it matter from the point of view of an individual
> country? even from a world perspective, does it matter to the world
> economy's health if there's an imbalance between which countries
> produce SV and which countries produce it?
>
> it's true that the disjuncture between what serves the individual
> capitalist (hiring of unproductive labor-power) and what is best for
> the world capitalist class as a whole (hiring and using productive
> labor-power) implies an over-investment in unproductive labor-power.
> But any sector of the world capitalist economy that engages in
> excessive hiring of unproductive labor-power will find itself losing
> in competition. Further, the productivity of productive labor-power
> might rise enough to compensate (or more than compensate) for the
> "waste" involved in hiring unproductive labor-power.
>
> any thoughts?
> --
> 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.
>
> This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from
> http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm

--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu

Reply via email to