On 6/7/06, paul phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.

It occurs to me that just as the worker cannot be reduced to mere
labor power, the political economy cannot be explained entirely in the
workings of the laws accumulation. There are two overarching
dimensions to the political economy, domination and production. And it
is crucial that production poses a threat to domination. Therefore
waste is essential for preserving domination. It is a euphemism to
call this waste "demand". It's purpose is not to facilitate an
expanded production but to void the subversive potential of excess
production that has  *already* expanded.

There is something Veblen-ish about this perspective and, in fact, the
Veblenian, Stuart Chase wrote a book called "The Tragedy of Waste"
(there should be a sequel, "The Farce of Waste"). To get an idea of
what's happening, you have to set aside the building block view of
capital accounting and consider the value of capital as the discounted
present value of a projected future flow of revenues. The concept of
"goodwill" is useful here. Goodwill is defined by Commons as the
difference between the capitalization based on the present value of
future revenues and the bricks-and-machines value of the "means of
production". The role of unproductive labour from such a perspective
is not to contribute to present production in anyway but to maintain
the goodwill spread between the two kinds of capitalization. As such
"goodwill ambassadors" these unproductive workers don't need to be
employed by the capitalist firm, either directly or indirectly. They
can write editorials for the Wall Street Journal or teach
post-structuralist critical theory.

--
Sandwichman

Reply via email to