Re: [OPE] Reply to critics

Dave wrote:
"No, this does not follow, because the question is still open ..."

Dave, you might want the question to still be open, but let's be honest and clear about this. If we say that productive labor is simply coexisting labor in a definite amount, then all labor employed by capital is productive. The very concept becomes redundant.

"If you accept the meaning of commodity as a use-value exchanged for money a haircut certainly belongs to that category"

I define commodities as goods produced for market exchange (with the partial exception of the 'special' commodity, labor-power) . But not all use-values are goods; and not every use-value exchanged for money is a commodity. This seems to generate a lot of confusion.

"I have never come across this principle, neither in my reading philosophical materialism nor 'historical materialism'. At best you could argue that it is a distinction made by Smith".

As far as I know the distinction between productive and unproductive labor was introduced by Smith. Marx elaborated it and corrected some minor inconsistencies in Smith, but essentially they were in agreement on this issue.

Paula

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Tue Oct 12 16:50:52 2010