Earlier, Tom wrote:
> > 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.
me:
> Please explain what you mean here.
Tom responded:
What I mean is the commodity sometimes known as labor power is inseparable from the worker who is in no respect reducible to that commodity.
it's true workers are not commodities. But capitalism treats them as such. (Labor-power, as a commodity, simply refers to a (free) worker submitting to the authority of a boss for a specific period of time. It also refers to the capability of doing labor.)
As long as you are talking abstract generalities, you can have distinct categories of productive and unproductive labor. But when you try to examine _what workers do_ you are no longer operating at the level of abstraction at which the worker can be analytically reduced to the commodity, labor power.
right.
The analysis of the laws of motion of capital BEGINS with the commodity. That is to say it is founded on a suspension of disbelief in the magical properties of that thing taken as the unit of analysis.
huh? I thought Marx's whole point was to suspend _belief_ in the magical properties of commodities, to expose the relationships between people that are hidden by the relationships between things. (It's true that some of his followers fall for the fetishism of commodities, however.)
But the suspension of disbelief can only go so far and it flounders on the reef of productive/unproductive labor.
why? Earlier, Tom wrote:
> > 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).
me:
> I dunno. It's hard to offend Marxists when the alternative point of > view isn't even explained.
Tom:
Please explain what you mean by "explain". Does it mean "repeat what you've just said with more details," or does it mean "the explanation you have presented doesn't count as an explanation"?
for me asking for an explanation means asking why you think it makes sense so I might agree with you. I could see no reason to agree _or_ disagree with what you said above.
Assuming you are asking for more details but also assuming that you don't want to actually read the pamphlet,
I haven't the slightest idea how to get the pamphlet. Is it available on-line? (My googling of - "Dilke's pamphlet 'The Source and Remedy of National difficulties'" made Google spit out "did not match any documents.")
I'll just give a few of my impressions and interpretations. The first six pages of the pamphlet presents a scenario that, according to Engels at least, inspired Marx's temporal grounding of labor power in his analysis of the production of surplus value. I could say ( with some degree of hyperbole) that Marx's Capital, then, is a digression that proceeds from those first six pages.
hmm. I couldn't find Dilke in the index of either volume I or volume III of CAPITAL. Did Marx plagiarize? I wouldn't be surprised, since the standards of plagiarism were different back then.
The pamphlet itself, however, proceeds to develop a political analysis to which those first six pages were somewhat of a feint. That analysis centres on the distinctions between productive and unproductive labor and between real and fictitious capital.
oh. Is it a Smithian analysis of productive/unproductive labor? or is it the kind that we might (incorrectly?) term "Marxian"?
You ask what use is the productive/unproductive distinction. One could easily ask what use is the analysis of capital? Well, presumably it has to do with developing a taxonomy of classes and ultimately with the identification of an historical subject (or subjects). Same thing with the productive/unproductive distinction, although the composition of the resulting classes is obviously going to be different.
having read a bunch of lit on this cul-de-sac, I assumed there was a consensus that "unproductive workers" were not really different politically speaking from "productive" ones. But maybe I was wrong.
Instead of revolving around a stable legal relationship of ownership or non-ownership toward the means of production, they revolve around ephemeral functional relationships that arise and perish within the process of production of surplus value. Note that one set is external and the other is internal. You can't simply map one set of relationships onto the other, although you might find a few exemplary "types" and settle for stereotyping. Admittedly, the productive/unproductive distinction may leave a lot to be desired as a tool for prognosticating the future course of history but if someone can explain to me how the ownership/non-ownership of the means of production does a better job I will be much obliged.
the ownership/nonownership dimension does say a lot about class conflict. Of course, history can't be predicted. Not understanding exactly what Tom is talking about here, I'll stick to my point that the whole productive/unproductive labor distinction is a theoretical cul-de-sac, until convinced otherwise. -- 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.
