Re Paul C's [OPE-L:5094]: Previously I quoted the following definition from Shaikh/Tonak: > > ( A definition offered in the S/T book is: > > "Productive labor is the production labor > > employed in capitalist production sectors: > > agriculture, mining, construction, transportation > > and public utilities, manufacturing, and > > productive services (defined as all services > > except business services, legal services, and > > private households; see Table E.1 for a full > > listing of productive services). It excludes > > nonproduction labor (sales, etc.) employed in > > the production sectors such as trade or > > finance. Total productive labor is the sum > > of the production workers in each production sector. Total unproductive labor is the sum > > of nonproduction workers in the production > > sectors and all workers in the nonproduction > > sectors", p. 295). Paul C responded: > This is essentially the definition that I have worked to in empirical > studies going back to the 1970's, recently however I have > come to doubt its correctness. It is predicated upon an assumption > that the social formation is a pure capitalist mode of production. > For social formations containing a combination of modes of > production this is not necessarily an adequate categorisation. What is considered to be "productive" or "unproductive" labor varies with the mode of production. In the capitalist mode of production, these categories concern whether labor is or is not productive of surplus value (as distinct from the surplus product). What this suggests is that for social formations in which there are a number of modes of production present, then the value relation is not entirely adequate for the conceptualization of labor in that social formation. > It has peverse results such as workers in government direct > labour departments building roads being unproductive, when > the same work done by private contractors is productive. It is perverted -- yet, this is a perversion that stems from the operation of the capitalist mode of production itself rather than a perversion of theory. To begin to make sense of the perversion, we have to recall the diference between the *production of wealth* and the *production of value*. The roads that are produced by state labor *clearly* represent an increase in social wealth. Do they also represent an increase in *value*? I would answer "No" because the roads represent a *use-value alone* and do not take the commodity- form or take the value-form. So, indeed it is perverted that the same use-value can be produced by labor which is unproductive of value as can be produced by labor which is productive of value. Capitalism is perverted -- so what else is new? Let's consider this question further: *wealth* can be created by living human labor *and nature*. In the case of the roads built by state labor then the source of the funds to pay these laborers comes from capitalists and workers via taxation or borrowing. In either event, this is dependent on the *accumulation of capital* in the rest of the economy. Now, an interesting question might be to consider the implications of this from an *international perspective*. There is no doubt that the roads and some other aspects of social infrastructure can make possible an increase in social wealth at the level of a national economy. This increased infrastructure gives capitalist firms a "comparative advantage" when dealing on international markets with commodities produced by firms from countries where the infrastructure is not as well developed. Indeed, one might say that this represents an *absolute advantage* for some firms rather than a comparative advantage. Now, how do we factor this into the distribution of value internationally? One way of explaining this might be that the contributions of state labor to social wealth and the contributions of nature to social wealth contribute to the re-distribution of value and wealth internationally through the mechanism of "surplus profits" captured by leading firms at the expense of less competitive firms. This might be seen as a *rent-like mechanism* which rewards firms from some countries and punishes firms in others. > <snip, JL> To the extent > that a large part of the social product takes this form, as > it has at times in some European countries, it would appear > that the economy becomes increasingly unproductive. This might very well be the case (Fred came to a similar conclusion), but you would agree that we should think of the European countries (with the possible exception of former "socialist" countries) as nations in which the capitalist mode of production is dominant and in which the remnants of prior modes of production have only a marginal influence, wouldn't you? > I think that we need two different concepts: > 1. socially productive This is a concept which is trans-historical. > 2. productive for the capitalist class as a whole This must center around the creation of value rather than social wealth. What do others think? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 09:57:28 EDT