Paul C, I THINK You misunderstand what I am saying, I have put in comments in caps below to try to make amends for any lack of clarity Paul B. -----Original Message----- From: Paul Cockshott <paul@cockshott.com> To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu> Date: 19 February 2001 13:56 Subject: [OPE-L:4961] Re: Re: faux frais, armaments, and security guard services >On Wed, 14 Feb 2001, you wrote: >> Gerry, >> >> Security guards may or may not be unproductive labourers. If employed by >> businees out of its own pocket to protect the premises, then unproductive. >> If employed by a company to protect others property, in which a profit is >> made, then productive. It is not a question of the use value, but the >> particular social relation. I agree with your (1) and (2). With regard to >> (3) it doesn't matter who buys these weapons ( in Marx's simple >> reproduction schema unproductive consumption is part of the process, and it >> is well known eg that privately held hand guns/ rifles in the USA are >> extraordinary in number when compared to NATO's ). Profit is made in their >> production, and labour is 'productive' of capital ( and also often in >> employing the secrurity guard) but the use values themselves produced >> cannot re-enter the process of reproduction of capital. From the organic >> side, the value side, - the relation from which we can actually undersatnd >> appearances - this means that any productivity in this type of production >> ( as opposed for example to bread) will not result in reduction of the value >> of variable capital and cannot therefore promote the production of relative >> surplus value. ____________________________________________________________ I find this treatment unstatisfactory as it causes the mass of unproductive expenditure in the national accounts to depend upon the degree of dis-aggregation of the ownership of firms. ( NOT AT ALL... THE QUESTION IS WHETHER A COMPANY SELLS THE SERVICES OF SECURITY MEN... EG SECURICOR, THE BIGGEST SUCH FIRM IN EUROPE, TO OTHER CAPITALISTS, SO EXPANDING ITS OWN CAPITAL THROUGH THE PRODUCTION OF A SERVICE; OR USES THEM ITSELF FOR ITS OWN PROTECTION USING ITS OWN MONEY AS REVENUE ) By simply hiving of divisions carrying out unproductive activities like accounting (ACCOUNTING IS RELATED TO THE CHANGE IN SOCIAL FORM AND SO UNPRODUCTIVE PER SE, SECURITY IS ANOTHER ISSUE) and security guard activities, these activities get transformed into produtive labour. ( THIS RAISES SOME IMPORTANT QUESTIONS: INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, IT IS WHAT THE UK STATE HAS BEEN TRYING CONSTANTLY TO DO WITH ITS OWN UNPRODUCTIVE ADMIN LABOUR FORCE IN THE UK FOR 20 YEARS... WHY? WHAT CAN WE MAKE OF THIS? WASN'T THATCHERS INSTINCT IN THE INTERESTS OF CAPITAL , AND HOW CAN WE ASSESS THIS? I THINK EACH CONCERETE CASE NEEDS CAREFUL CONSIDERATION. if churches chose to incorporate themselves as limited liability companies the work of priests would become productive. If regiments were privatised then the army would be productive. THE LEGAL FORM IS NOT THE QUESTION, IT IS THE QUESTION OF PRIVATE APPROPRIATION IN THE WORK PROCESS, AS OPPOSED TO SPENDING ON LABOUR THAT DISTRIBUTES IT'S RESULTS AS THE PAYER DEMANDS . I think that the question of whether the labour contributes to the production of relative surplus value has to be the primary criterion, this is consonant with Smith's original intention when introducing the concept of unproductive labour.(IT WOULD BE NICE TO THINK THAT RSV WAS IN SMITHS MIND AT THE TIME BUT I DOUBT IT) > > > -- >Paul Cockshott, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland >0141 330 3125 mobile:07946 476966 >paul@cockshott.com >http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/people/personal/wpc/ >http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/index.html > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:39 EST