From: Paul Cockshott (clyder@GN.APC.ORG)
Date: Mon Jan 14 2008 - 17:56:17 EST
Quoting Jerry Levy <jerry_levy@VERIZON.NET>: > The production of relative surplus value is the key to the whole > definition. Productive labour is that labour which is directly or undirectly > necessary to support the direct producers. > > ------------------------ > > Hi Paul C: > > The distinction between productive and unproductive labor should not rest on > a particular form of surplus value. If the production > of relative surplus value is "the key" then what happens in the case of the > production of absolute surplus value? > > In solidarity, Jerry > I think it is the key to understanding things. Take the Aldermaston atom bomb factory. If working hours are raised at the same daily pay, (the condition for the production of absolute surplus value), HMG will get more A-bombs per month, but this is a matter of use value. Has the social quantity of surplus value risen? The most you could say that more surplus labour has been unproductively wasted. The situation is the same as when lithium deuteride was used to replace liquid tritium and and deuterium in US Hbombs. The bombs became cheaper, so more could be made, but overall surplus value did not rise. Paul Cockshott www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc reality.gn.apc.org ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 31 2008 - 00:00:06 EST