From: Tony Tinker (tonytinker@msn.com)
Date: Sat Jan 18 2003 - 04:44:27 EST
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 : Mon Jan 20 2003 - 00:00:01 EST