From: Paul Cockshott (paul@cockshott.com)
Date: Sun Jan 19 2003 - 04:36:15 EST
Tony Tinker wrote:
> 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).
I disagree with this on several counts:
1. For a group to have a potentially progressive role, they have to
see their activity as persisting and being better rewarded in the
future society. If a social category is to be eliminated by the revolution
they are unlikely to be enthusiastic about it. Banking and advertising
for example, even if the workers are paid a salary will be unenthusiastic
for revolution because
a. they will stand to loose their jobs
b. jobs they do get instead may well pay less
2. Banking work was overwhelmingly salaried in Marx's day, there has
been no change since then.
3. For work to be productive of surplus value it must be productive
of value. Reciept of a share of interest payments - the source of income
for bank workers, does not constitute the production of surplus value.
4. Reciept of surplus value as an income source puts banking workers
objectively opposed to the working class and this is reflected in
politics - see how they vote.
> 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?
They would be productive according to Marx. I use a Sraffian condition
of productivity so I would judge them unproductive.
>
>
> 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 : Tue Jan 21 2003 - 00:00:00 EST