Jim Devine wrote:
again, I wonder what use all this is?
I have found that the distinction between productive and unproductive labour very useful in understanding/explaining recent (i.e. post 2nd WW) developments within a 'Galbraithian' framework. That is, once you go beyond basic necessities, as Galbraith points out, capitalists find it necessary to 'create' demand. That is, in order to realize surplus value as profits, they must augment demand through advertising, marketing, product design, etc. all of which employs unproductive (in a Marxist sence) labour that does not produce use value or surplus value but merely increases market value/price. But such labour must be paid out of the surplus value created in production. Hence, a growing wedge arises between production productivity and wages of basic producers. This means, of course, that the rate of exploitation of basic producers must increase. However, as others have pointed out, this cannot increase indefinitely though, to the extent American capital can capture the surplus value of production through foreign investment or through market power turning the terms of trade against primary producers in favour of (unproductive) marketing institutions (e.g. Walmart), American labour can live off the surplus value of China, India, etc. As, I think Michael, mentioned, should China and the far east turn off the tap, I think North America would be in deap doo-doo. 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
