From: Tony Tinker (TonyTinker@msn.com)
Date: Sun Feb 02 2003 - 19:34:46 EST
Paul: my replies in red (I've tried to clean up our exchange by removing the unremarked passages, to sharpen the focus of discussion).
Tony Tinker
----- Original Message -----
Tony Tinker
----- Original Message -----
I asume the basis for your saying this is encapsulated in the following quote from you:
The wage relationship, the social relationship, is an historically necessary precondition for capitalist accumulation but is not in itself sufficient for succesful accumulation. The labour power has to be used in a particular way, not a technical issue, but in order to expand the material relation.
What do you mean by a "material relation" here Paul? ( I see material as the contrary to ideal/ ideational eg formulating a way of interpretying material reality, which is what accountants constantly discuss... eg 'the value of brands I am not aware of this discussion; would you please give me a reference....this is work concerned with presenting society in the minds of its operators distinct from what is actually happening. Again religious conceptions would fall in here) This is a dangerous bifurcation. Isn't what is in the minds of actors also part of the real? Indeed, to put things more strongly and bluntly, If one is interested in political change, shouldn't extant mentalities be under consideration (remembering how many Marxists 'missed' fascism in the 1930's). This is why we have a field of Marxism called 'cultural materialism' . I've given you examples where both accountants, and bankers may increase the total surplus produced in an economy by diminishing the value of labor. This is in addition to their adding to total surplus value by being employed for less value than they create. I'd also appreciate your providing the details of where in Marx, you find this to be definitively settled.
By 'value of labour' I imagine you mean value of labour power correct.. now, as far as I know the accountant does not provide a service necessary for the direct reproduction of the labourers, a 'wage good' as it is sometimes called Let's take an example: the value of the labor product is 12 hours, and the value of labor power is 4, hence a surplus value of 8, Now suppose I introduce a little judicious variance analysis, budgetary control, divisionalized control procedures, responsibility accounting, cost cutting/ intimidation, etc, we depress the value of labor power (and wage compensation, and thus the capacity to buy wage goods) to 3, hasn't the accountant increased productivity (and exploitation) by 1? so how can the presumably increasingly efficient activities of the accountant possibly push down the value of labour power see above and so increase the surplus labour time the worker performs for the employer?? see above.
Now, here is the ambiguity in your expression. certainly the financial accountant is renumerated in money ( a form of value), but he/she does not produce or reproduce value. I've just given you (above) yet another example, that you can add to the chainsaw Al, and the Merrill Lynch / Sewing Machine instances. Volume three clearly deals with this process of the circulation capitalist laying claim to the surplus value of the productive sector. Volune III is a historically specific application of (especially) Volume I. The former has the theoretical generality that transcend the specific mutations of capitalism. It is not the proper source of reference for our discussion. (If Vol 3 is not to be regarded as a 'proper source' then our paths must be diverging too greatl;y for me to be able to continue ) Neither Marx nor Engels would approve of treating their works as sacred texts. We do have to be discerning readers. The standalone writings by Engels are clearly of a different calibre from those co-authored with Marx (or those written solely by Marx). Marx did not devote the same care and attention to Volume III (and II) as he did to Volume I.
TT: You concede this ( no, I accept that management teams can be regarded as part of the process of productive labour, although in this area we have to be careful to distinguish, as Marx does, the unproductive 'supervisory/disciplinary ' role Well, doesn't 'supervision" depress the labor cost / labor reproduction value, and thereby increase TOTAL surplus value? Otherwise, why would capital, in a market economy, employ supervisors? To make your argument, you need to show, that this is merely a transfer of value from your 'productive' sector (and not a net increase in value). I've shown with repeated examples that, by depressing the value of labor, it there is a net increase in TOTAL surplus value. and those linked to circulation eg counting money etc , from those involved in productive activities). Now, you might insist that this is a morally reprehensible activity, but that's a form of argument that Marx explicitly rejects. (I spoke not a word about 'morality' ) So, now, supervisors ie the disciplinarian function, also create surplus value for you. Werll, I again disagree... they are concerned to maintain the social relation, the strong arm of the law as it were, not to produce as such.My previous example rebuts this argument here also. If, at a macro level, the the total value of labor power (and social wage in money terms) is reduced, and/or the value of the the total labor product is increased, by deunionisation (Ronald Thatcherism) or 'better' cost control (more accountants), then it increases surplus value, and the value of the total labor product. This isn't just 'my opinion', or just 'for me', it is 'in reality').
Strictly speaking you know that financial accountants deal essentially with the composition and presentation of financial statements for other users. This is basic to your profession. It is the other users that do the decision making... the Directors..on behalf of the owners.. the accountants may be compliant with 'fiddles' but have no power to authorise them. This is Dickensian idea of what modern business all about. Without the financial accounting information, there would be no decisions. Accountants make the bullets, and the guns, and indeed, they frequently fire them, as decision process in many corporations are now so semi-automated such that there is little human intervention between the accounting information and the decisions. Tony are you agreeing then with Burnham, that we have now, in our non Dickensian world, a managerial class that really runs capitalism? ( there seemto be a lot of 'dickensians' writing texts thesedays then, as well as packinh shareholders meetings) I'm not familiar with Burnham, but the bifurcation (between managerial control versus owner-control) is simplistic. Under lax competitive conditions, managers have more (agency) discretion, and in tight (more competitive) markets they have less. Discretion is always constrained by managerial labor and other markets. Ahistorical (wild) generalizations about managers versus owner control are meaningless; the analysis has to be historically contingent. But my original point still stands: accountants are just as -- if not more potent in surplus value producers -- than many managers.
Even if we follow your 'legalistic' / contracting/ argument, accountants are also fiduciaries (agents) -- like directors. Nor do the directors simply 'do the decision making' these days. More frequently, it is management, (who, with accountants and directors, also have a fiduciary duty to the owners, and other constituencies, under the law). As you say their duty is to the owners, who have the final say. There is no 'final say' in a joint product (it is like arguing that water is more important than food for the good life).
On the criterion 'reproducing the activity' (a criterion Marx uses himself in demonstrating exploitation with exchange of equal value) accountants are indispensible to reproducing decision processes. They have the power Paul. any case since the directors themselves are agents of the principals, then we are here directly tracing a line of capitalist exploitative behaviour, not productive labour. I don't follow your 'line-tracing', why isn't exploitative behavior 'productive' in the many ways shown previously. Exploitation is the appropriation of the labour time of the workers, but first the workers have actually to work... 'in the beginning was the deed ' as Marx quoted form Goethe. Work can take place within many different social relations, the historical majority have been exploitative. Capital is a specific form of exploitation, but it does not use all labour for production. If you mean 'all wage labor' then I agree. But this seems off the point. I heartily agree that non-wage labor may be essential for reproducing wage labor (e.g, family labor). But we've been discussing accounting wage labor.
TT: If the average value of reproducing labor is reduced, doesn't that mean -- ceterus paribus -- that the total amount of surplus value increases? Isn't there an macro redistribution from labor to capital; and an increase in surplus value?
Paul: I don't see how redistribution is the same as production.It is not redistibuting the same amount. It will increase both the total surplus value and total value product in the economy. Surely you would agree that, with a little cost accounting thuggery, we accountants can expand the working day, increase intensity of work, -- and, at the same time, reduce the reproduction value and cost of labor. All these combine to increase the value of the total product in the economy, and the total surplus value in the economy. -- Well, here we seem to be getting to a point... the cost accountant acts in a thugish way towards the others...is acting against the others immediate interests,but for whom? Well, as you later remind us (correctly) of the importance of a systemic view, the question is not "for whom", but "for what?" The answer to that is for reproducing the wage-capital relation (the conditions of exploitation).
Now you have come to the really fundamental issue. Even if you were to accept all that I have said, we would both be hard put to trace the concrete relations which exist between every labouring activity and the reproduction and expansion of total social capital. Here, I agree entirely, and neither of us resolve this question. But these more muddied connections (between theory and application) are better dealt with, I would argue, with a deep appreciation what is specific to our present history. This not includes a caution about the social relativity of categories like 'profit', interest (or accountants and bankers), but also an acknowledgement that the battle-lines between classes, are no longer so distinct. There no-necessary-class-belongness, in the sense that individuals themselves are fragmented between productive and rapacious roles. The divison of labor itself is inherently corrupted, such that , a priori, we can no longer assign, unambiguously, members of particular occupations to one class or another. The answer is usually "both" (and we suffer these stresses in our everyday life). 'Services' in particular are a taxing issue...I have already exampled what I think of 'educational' services to you previously. In this sense I DON' T fall back on notions of crude materiality, or wish to halt such a discussion which must keep up to date. Nevethertheless, at the base of it all, man may live by bread alone, he cannot without it.
I think that there is a great danger in trying to link a particular ie individual application of an 'economic' category to politics. I don't follow this. Your prior comments appear to assign great importance to politics, in the best sense, thus why would this be a danger? Surely, ultimately, what we do politically (and how we do it) is of vital importance. The overall issues are class issues, not individual issues. Surely they are both. After all, structures are only enabled through the actions of individuals; they don't move on their own (Silverman -- roughly!). I
Fraternally,
Tony Tinker
Paul.
----- Original Message -----
From: Tony Tinker
To: Paul Bullock
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 10:25 AM
Subject: Re: [OPE-L:8356] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Education and Value
Paul: Limit your comments to the content under discussion. Personal remarks won't make your argument.
Tony Tinker
Professor and Co-Editor
Critical Perspectives on Accounting
The Accounting Forum
Baruch College at the City University of New York
Box B12-236
17 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10010
USA
Email: TonyTinker@msn.com
Tel: 646-312-3175
Fax: 646-312-3161
Critical Perspectives Conference:
http://aux.zicklin.baruch.cuny.edu/critical/
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Bullock
To: Tony Tinker
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: [OPE-L:8356] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Education and Value
Tony... I really think you are not concentrating since there is nothing contradictory at all in what I have said, whilst you seem to be reading what I say in the opposite way to which it is written. My comments in bold Italics
----- Original Message -----
From: Tony Tinker
To: Paul Bullock
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 9:23 PM
Subject: Re: [OPE-L:8356] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Education and Value
This is a lot clearer Paul, and much of which I concur. I'm still curious how some of these arguments square with your earlier comments.( read it all again then!) I've used the bold feature to distinguish my comments this time.
----- Original Message -----
Paul Bullock said:
Now indeed you did say 'that the wage relation is not just a payment, but a payment in value that is less than the value produced', but as I said, this defines wage labour as productive labour, but it is clear that whilst the reverse is true, your definition excludes the possibility that unproductive labour is wage labour.. so 'by definition' you are declaring the non-existence of unproductive labour in a wage relationship. I have no problem with that. (What do you mean by that comment? .. that you ARE decaring that unproductive labour is not in a 'wage' relationship, as I say you seem to be doing, OR that you now agree with me that your original definition of wage labour was incomplete?)
The unproductive worker can be employed in a series of relations to capital eg the lovely school nurse who checks for lice is indeed caring for the workers ( as a result of their demands on the State) and I would say that this labour is 'productive in a special way' that it contributes directly to the reproduction of a healthy (ish) work force... and indeed such a view is a development from Marx's notes... however that lice inspector does not produce surplus value.. she/he simply helps reproduce living labour at an historically established level, ( apart from not being employed capitalistically). Such an analysis is fully aware of the historical changes since Marx...and can be discussed.
This is fine. It is exactly the kind of argument that Harry Cleaver makes in READING CAPITAL POLITICALLY for insisting that -- in the political project -- unproductive labor (that which reproduces productive labor -- housework, rearing, education, etc) are important, because they too can disrupt the reproduction of the system. What still seems open for debate is the relative importance of these different groups in effecting social change. A case might be made that 'front-line' wage laborors are the most potent base for struggle, and the ancilliary (but necessary) labor, are of less consequence. But there are too many historical exceptions to this idea to make it a good generalization. Hence, this still seems open for research.
But to deny that labour power used by capitalists in the process of circulation (exchanging goods for money) is unproductive for capital as a whole..that is to deny that it does not produce surplus value, is wrong. Well, I seem to recall making exactly the same case [ I don't... are you sure you understand my double negatives here?}
(indeed, you might wonder why I'm an accountant if I didn't subscribe to this).
(Are you saying you would resign if you werent creating surplus value for the capitalist? But you arn't...you lay claim to part of someone else's material efforts in return for helping to maintain the social relation of profit calculation, an adjunct to effective exploitation..)
Previously, I offered the Chainsaw Al versus Sewing Machine products of Merill Lynch example. Today's bankers (and MBA's) may indeed be wage labor, and may
( ahaa so now it is 'may')
indeed increase total surplus value. It wasn't like this in Marx's time. The 'circulation' capitalist invests capital and claims a profit on the capital outlay within the charge he makes, but this charge realises part of the mass of surplus value produced by the productive capitalists.
Now here we part company again. See my previous example. We accountants certainly increase the 'mass of surplus value' ( Sorry but whilst management accounting might be said to be part of the overall production effort... and so this part of your efforts are indeed 'productive;' for the capitalist, most financial accounting isn't at all...its to do with the accurate allocation of surpluses, ie the appopriation process )
This is perfectly clear in Volume 3. It is an obvious fact, since productive industry consciously calculates the discounts its makes on its products to account for those costs, and which involves such 'marketing' considerations such as the % to stimulate sales by various distributors, or the discussion between bourgeoise politicians about the usefulness of 'retail price maintenance' regimes etc.I don't understand this sentence (and I therefore cannot even 'surmise'!) Let me rephrase...using an entirely practical approach... the factory owner knowingly sells his product to the retailer at less than the market price ( ie the price of production in the long term), and will calculate how much below the price of production he will offer the factory gate product so to stimulate sales ( no sales no profit for anyone). This practical reality demonstrates that the circulation capitalist obtains his own profit from the surplus value of the producer of the good. The basis for the claim the retailer makes is the surplus labour time performed by his workers.
So, all wage labour is not productive labour, asyou seem to want to say, except if you fall back on an anodyne notion of 'useful' labour
Well, this is not such an anodyne definition. If these workers are donating part of their product
( Again the unproductive workers are NOT donating 'part of their product' - whatever that means - so your argument here doesn't follow from anything other than YOUR definition of productive labour as all wage labour, so that since unproductive labopur is thus wage labour, unproductive labour is actually productive... which is the whole bone of our contention)
to a process of accumulation, and through reinvestment, to their own real subsumption, and thus their own repression or 'degradation', then surely the definition captures very important conditions that may inspire a revolt. Obviously, they are't all there is; but they would seem prima facie important from a systemic viewpoint.
generally, rather than in the specific sense Marx meant. The wage relationship, the social relationship, is an historically necessary precondition for capitalist accumulation but is not in itself sufficient for succesful accumulation. Absolutely! The labour power has to be used in a particular way, not a technical issue, but in order to expand the material relation. There is a lot of discussion about this, probably a bit dull for most of the OPE-L members since it has been gone over so often. I understand your concern for the historical changes, the incorrect focus on concrete individuals and so on. I am not falling into that sort of trap, so don't misread me. Agreed -- and thanks for such a clear statement. The fundamental challenge you are making, is that there is no difference between the concept of production and circulation in Marx, and your challenge is misconceived. You are right on this score, and here you may have landed on the core of an interesting debate. I certainly want to argue in this direction (although perhaps not quite so absolutely as you suggest)
[ either you do or you don't}
on two counts: first, the historical specificity issue (that many of the service occupations of Marx's day) have now become 'productive' by his own definition. Second, that contemporary readers seem to overestimate the divide between production, distribution, and circulation without admitting to Marx's many cautions about their overlapping/ intersecting/ enclusive character (and here I would point to the more 'theoretical' guides found in the Grundrisse, rather than the Engels mediated 'applications' in Volume 3).
Not only a I not a Sraffian, but I don't like the ideaof trying to 'split' marx and Engels either by the way,
sincerely
Paul Bullock
Tony Tinker
----- Original Message -----
From: Tony Tinker
To: Paul Bullock
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 9:11 AM
Subject: Re: [OPE-L:8356] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Education and Value
Paul's comments (in bold):
OK so are you absolutely sure that you want to declare contra Marx.
.. p 273 Grundrisse..that if according to you the worker receives a wage ,
' it is productive labour when somebody picks the lice out of his (the capitalist's)
hair, or strokes his tail ( a charming rendition of the original, PB), because
for example the latter activity will make his fathead - block head - clearer
the nextday in the office' then we can only agree to disagree)
I've already stated that the wage relation is not just a payment, but a payment in value that is less than the value produced. If there is no surplus value produced by lice pickers, then this example is irrelevant. Nothwithstanding your obviously distain for lice pickers, can't you find a warm spot for them compared, say, with the factory workers at who make rockets, firearms, or alchohol? (who, I assume, would be 'productive' -- for both of us -- for very different reasons!).
>
>> 19th Century notions of what banking, accounting, (and MBA's!) ( actually
I really didn't know there were MBA's in the 19th century... tell me more)
Well, economist have their Robinson Crusoes, and business history has ...! Do please lighten up!.
My apologies for branding you a Sraffarian; I confused the postings.
Tony Tinker
Professor and Co-Editor
Critical Perspectives on Accounting
The Accounting Forum
Baruch College at the City University of New York
Box B12-236
17 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10010
USA
Email: TonyTinker@msn.com
Tel: 646-312-3175
Fax: 646-312-3161
Critical Perspectives Conference:
http://aux.zicklin.baruch.cuny.edu/critical/
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Bullock
To: Tony Tinker
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: [OPE-L:8356] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Education and Value
Tony,
I interpolate in bold, below, for clarity.
Paul Bullock
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Tinker" <tonytinker@msn.com>
To: "Paul Bullock" <paulbullock@ebms-ltd.co.uk>
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 5:36 PM
Subject: Re: [OPE-L:8356] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Education and Value
> Paul Bullock wrote:
>
> > we are as far apart as ever. You are attempting in one way or another to
> > introduce cimcumstantial activities, necessary as they be for system
> > maintenance, as identical to the actual efforts of the labour productive
> of capital itself. This won't do. If all wage labour was productive of
> capital
>
> TT Reply:
>
> Isn't wage labor 'productive of capital' by definition? (by a Marxist, not a
> Sraffarian definition). NO, productive labour provides a particular use
value for capital, If the value (and wage cost) of labor power is less than the value of the
> labor product, ( so you avoid the question by using only productive labour
as your example...solving your 'problem' as it were 'by definition')
> then the difference adds to capital (and in that sense, is "productive"). I
> realize this doesn't fit a Sraffian view, but lets first resolve whether I'm
> being faithful to my dogma. Then we can proceed to examine the worth of a
> post-Sraffarian view.(I am not a Sraffian, post, ante, or whatever 'varieties' there are)>
> > who would manage its sale, manage the accounts and plan its detailed
> > allocation? There would be no circuits of capital... in fact no
> capitalism.
>
> In general, you seem to be seeking a clarity in the concreteness of classes
> and class struggle that is no longer there.( to which I could respond that
you are trying to muddle matters that are perfectly clear)
Specifically, I surmise ( please don't, it is better to deal with what I say)
that
> you think we should be able to identify specific individuals and occupations
> with 'one side or the other'. Modern capitalism has blurred those
> distinctions, such that the same person (or occupation) may serve both
> repressive, and potentially progressive functions. I hate using Marx as a
> substitute for good argument, but you do find this anticipated in his
> writings. For instance, contra you thesis, we cannot assume that
> production, distribution, and circulation are mutually exclusive activities
.( of course an concrete individual can do all these things, but we
are talking about labout time expended on 'functions' as Marx
also said... not individuals...but an activity)
> They aren't, as Marx states repeatedly in the first 100 pages or so in the
> Grundrisse. These are not Cartesian categories, but ones that embody each
> other. And the same applies today to individuals, working class/ people, and
> "population". The latter is discussed by Marx (famously) in his brief
> exposition of Hegelian dialectics (p.100 of the Penguin/ Martin Nicholas
> edition). ( OK so are you absolutely sure that you want to declare contra Marx.
.. p 273 Grundrisse..that if according to you the worker receives a wage ,
' it is productive labour when somebody picks the lice out of his (the capitalist's)
hair, or strokes his tail ( a charming rendition of the original, PB), because
for example the latter activity will make his fathead - block head - clearer
the nextday in the office' then we can only agree to disagree)
>
> You are confusing useful activities in general for the system with that
> > specific usefulness, the production of surplus value.
>
> Please be a little clearer about my confusions here. For example, to
> 'manage the accounts', today, isn't just a redistribution of a pre-given
> surplus; managing accounts provides vital information for increasing the
> total surplus by depressing the value of labor power/ the social wage (plant
> relocations, labor variance analysis, capital budgeting, and even Morgan
> Stanley's recent outrageous 'advice to investors to focus only on firms with
> non-union plants etc). This increases the aggregate surplus in the economy.
> Isn't it therefore an instance of your "specific usefulness ... the
> production of surplus value"?
>
> Again, management accounting, is devoted just to that task of increasing
> surplus value at both the micro and macro level. It isn't just
> redistributing a fixed total surplus. 'Good' management accounting allows an
> employer to identify ways of saving on (say) pension costs; thereby reducing
> the social wage at the micro level, that will also impact the macro level
> surplus. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you still seem to be working with
> 19th Century notions of what banking, accounting, (and MBA's!) ( actually
I really didn't know there were MBA's in the 19th century... tell me more) are all
> about. Marx never intended that you should 'eternalize' these categories
> into the present.( I don't think he meant us to declare them abolished before
capitalism was) They must be historically and theoretically
> reconstructed.
>
> Fraternally,
>
> Tony Tinker
>
> >
> > paul bullock
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Tony Tinker" <TonyTinker@msn.com>
> > To: "Paul Bullock" <paulbullock@ebms-ltd.co.uk>
> > Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 8:11 PM
> > Subject: Re: [OPE-L:8356] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Education and Value
> >
> >
> > > Paul: We do seem to be converging on common criteria. I still want to
> > > argue however that you underestimate the capital producing antics of
> bank
> > > clerks, accountants, MBA's and the police (see below). To reiterate an
> > > earlier point, these occupations may indeed have been confined to
> > > 'distribution' in Marx's day, but they have now joined the ranks of an
> > > oppressive bureaucracy that is employed to extract surplus value and
> > > therefore valorize capital. Please see below for some marginal
> comments.
> > >
> > > > Tony,
> > > >
> > > > Indeed much has been written...and you are right to point out the
> the
> > > > labour performing 'personal services' in Marx's day have become
> > performed
> > > > capitalistically these days.... but take the simple example. In your
> > > opinion
> > > > are bank clerks and their aspiring or actual MBA managers 'productive
> '
> > of
> > > > capital? Certainly not, they spend their energies supervising the
> > change
> > > in
> > > > form of capital, not producing it; allocating it, not producing it;
> > > > participating in the collection of interest on capital, not creating
> > > > capital....
> > >
> > > But they don't just supervise the collection of interest. MBA's and
> > > accountants for instance, identify profitable projects (e.,g factory
> > > relocations, tax havens, non-union enterprise zones) and direct the
> > > employment of capital to those locations. This can increases surplus
> > value
> > > in both a micro and a macro sense. The latter, I anticipate would be
> your
> > > main concern, and I certainly would argue that the impact of
> accountants,
> > > police, MBA's etc, is not just to redistribute pieces of the same 'pie'
> ,
> > > but collectively, they oppress a whole (working) class such that the
> whole
> > > (surplus value) pie increases in size. I would make the same arguments
> for
> > > the police: by brutalizing the working class, they depress the value of
> > > labor power (in toto) and thereby increase surplus value. This isn't
> just
> > > about redistribution.
> > >
> > > If you wish to conflate the production of capital with its
> > > > circulation then i shall have to keep a distance still... OR again ,
> > the
> > > > policeman's personal service, or state organised service guards
> against > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Tony Tinker" <tonytinker@msn.com>
> > > > To: <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu>
> > > > Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2003 9:44 AM
> > > > Subject: [OPE-L:8356] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Education and Value
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Dear Paul, I don't think you are going to make this case. but
> please
> > > be
> > > > > patient as I am swamped with work right now (I have deadlines for
> > > > > presentations that are very pressing). There is a wealth of
> > literature
> > > > over
> > > > > the years over the distinction between 'productive' and
> > > 'non-productive'.
> > > > > These debates resurface because people never seem to go back to
> these
> > > > prior
> > > > > debates. In essence, the confusions arise because Marx's
> historically
> > > > > specific categories/ examples are taken as being eternal. Hence,
> for
> > > > Marx,
> > > > > writing in his time, salesmen, accountants, bankers etc, were all
> > > > > 'unproductive' in their day, not because of the intrinsically
> > > destructive
> > > > > nature of their work (which we might well agree it was) but because
> > they
> > > > > were not assimilated as wage labor, and thus were now integral to
> the
> > > > > capital - labor relation (with all the revolutionary potential that
> > > > > embodied). The latter is the criterion that is important for Marx,
> > > > because
> > > > > it is catalytic to social change. Hence, today, when bankers at
> > > Merrill
> > > > > Lynch, or accountants working in business schools, have been
> absorbed
> > > into
> > > > > the wage relation; even they offer this 'promise'.
> > > > >
> > > > > On the converse, I assume you won't want to argue that factory
> workers
> > > in
> > > > > armaments plants McDonald Douglas are -- by your definition, not
> mine
> > > > > 'productive' -- just because.... what?
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards, TT
> > > > >
> > > > > Tony Tinker
> > > > > Professor and Co-Editor
> > > > > Critical Perspectives on Accounting
> > > > > The Accounting Forum
> > > > > Baruch College at the City University of New York
> > > > > Box B12-236
> > > > > 17 Lexington Avenue
> > > > > New York, NY 10010
> > > > > USA
> > > > > Email: TonyTinker@msn.com
> > > > > Tel: 646-312-3175
> > > > > Fax: 646-312-3161
> > > > > Critical Perspectives Conference:
> > > > > http://aux.zicklin.baruch.cuny.edu/critical/
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Paul Bullock" <paulbullock@ebms-ltd.co.uk>
> > > > > To: "Tony Tinker" <tonytinker@msn.com>; <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu>
> > > > > Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 8:44 PM
> > > > > Subject: [OPE-L:8355] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Education and Value
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Dear Tony,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your conclusion is horribly wrong.......May I suggest you read TSV
> > > > 1.....
> > > > > if
> > > > > > the distinction between productive and unproductive labour in Vol
> 1
> > > > > capital
> > > > > > hasn't got you yet.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Good reading
> > > > > > Paul Bullock
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Tony Tinker" <tonytinker@msn.com>
> > > > > > To: <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu>
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 9:34 PM
> > > > > > Subject: [OPE-L:8341] Re: Re: Re: Re: Education and Value
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Re: your suggestion below, that MBA's are 'unproductive'.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My criterion of productive is strictly one of 'surplus
> value'
> > > > > > producing,
> > > > > > > and therefore contribute to the reproduction of capital (and
> thus
> > > the
> > > > > > > capital-labor relation of expropriation). And yes certainly,
> > > > > mercenaries
> > > > > > > (and probably state-financed troops -- state capital) would
> indeed
> > > > > qualify
> > > > > > > as productive as they are wage labor, form part of a wage labor
> > > > market,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > are productive of surplus value.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This identification is important, because the wage relation
> > > (regarded
> > > > in
> > > > > > > this manner) embodies the contradictions make the
> transformation
> > of
> > > > > > > capitalism possible.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Fraternally,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tony Tinker
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: <clyder@gn.apc.org>
> > > > > > > To: <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu>
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 8:57 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: [OPE-L:8339] Re: Re: Re: Education and Value
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Quoting Tony Tinker <TonyTinker@msn.com>:
> > > > > > > > (I assume that we agree that MBA's are now wage labor and
> > > > therefore
> > > > > > > > > productive of surplus value).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I would tend to doubt it. Much of what they do when they work
> > > > > > > > is surely unproductive. Getting a wage is not enough to make
> > > > > > > > labour productive or you would have to conclude that soldiers
> > > > > > > > are productive since they are the prototypical example of wage
> > > > > > > > labour.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 04 2003 - 00:00:01 EST