[OPE-L:8369] Re: Re: Re: Re: Education and Value

From: clyder@gn.apc.org
Date: Wed Jan 22 2003 - 07:36:04 EST


Paul did my reply to this go just to you or did you
get it from ope?
I have not seen the reply appear on ope so dont know
if it got lost or I sent it to you by mistake.

Quoting Paul Bullock <paulbullock@ebms-ltd.co.uk>:

> This exchange  perhaps needs to reflect on the fact that the distinction
> between productive and unproductive labour is made in order to deepen our
> understanding of the accumulation process, to provide an objective analysis,
> and so provide us with the basis for uniting all workers against capital
> ( the productive worker and his unproductive bank working sister). That
> capital bribes a section of its key workers (both productive and
> unproductive) , and the imperialist states have even more to bribe more of
> HQ workers with,  is an issue of political reality. It requires an
> understanding of the nature and changes in the labour aristocracy.  That is
> the locus of  political discussion, which cannot possibly fall back on some
> bizarre notion that 'unproductive' workers are somehow not really 'workers'
> or  automatically actively pro-capitalist!!
> 
> Paul Bullock
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <clyder@gn.apc.org>
> To: <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu>
> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 9:57 PM
> Subject: [OPE-L:8366] Re: Re: Education and Value
> 
> 
> > Quoting gerald_a_levy <gerald_a_levy@msn.com>:
> >
> > > Re Paul C's [8359]:
> > >
> > > Let me begin on a point of agreement: I agree with 3. in [8359].
> > >
> > > Putting aside that source of agreement for now,  I want to take issue
> > > with a couple of points you made:
> > >
> > > > 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. (snip)
> > >
> > > Groups of workers can't even be _potentially_ progressive unless
> > > they view themselves as being better off in a future (socialist)
> society???
> >
> > This seems to me to be an obvious and uncontroversial point. If we
> > take a materialist view, we can hardly expect social groups to act
> > against their own percieved interest.
> > >
> > > Let us recall here that we're talking about the productive/unproductive
> > > labor distinction and that the ratio of productive to unproductive
> > > workers has been steadily declining over the long term (as the empirical
> > > work by Anwar, Fred and others demonstrates).  For you to then say
> > > that large segments of workers who are unproductive of surplus value
> > > can't even be _potentially_ progressive is tantamount to saying that
> > > large amounts of workers -- perhaps even including a majority -- will
> > > not be supportive of  socialism. Oops ... there goes the revolution.
> >
> > Well I had not noticed any revolutions taking place in the countries with
> > large proportions of the workforce in financial services!
> >
> > You have to account for the massive conservatism if not outright
> reactionary
> > nature of the political process in the anglo saxon countries. My
> hypothesis
> > is that the long term influence of the financial/rentier interest and
> > its associated servant classes accounts for this.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > State employees receive wages that are paid out of revenues, i.e. they
> > > are in receipt of surplus value as an income source,  and hence
> > > are unproductive of surplus value.  Does this then also mean that they
> > > are "objectively opposed to the working class"???
> >
> > One must be quite clear that there are real conflicts of interest between
> > state employees and industrial workers. These can be politically
> exploited.
> >
> > On the other hand some sections of state employees, constitute a servant
> > class of the proletariat in that their services are consumed in large
> > part by the working class - most obvious examples of this are people like
> > cleansing workers, teachers, nurses in public hospitals etc. As such
> > these groups tend to identify with the working class, and tend to be
> > favourably disposed to socialism since socialism would retain them
> > as a category, and offer them better living standards.
> >
> >
> > > There is a very real
> > > political danger of  identifying the criteria  for determining whether
> > > groups are productive of surplus value with the criteria for determining
> > > which groups are members of the working class.  Indeed, if we simply
> > > identify productive labor with the working class, i.e. treat the two
> > > expressions as synonymous,  then we give up on the possibility of real
> > > working class unity and solidarity and with it the possibility of
> > > socialism.
> >
> > I agree, that simply identifying if a group are productive or unproductive
> > is not in itself enough. One needs to also see whose flunkies they are.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > We also have to remember that what is analyzed in _Capital_ is
> > > which workers are "productive" or "unproductive" from the
> > > *standpoint of capital*.
> >
> > It is, I think, slightly more subtle. In Capital the key feature,
> > is whether the workers are productive for capital as a whole
> > not whether they are productive for individual capitals.
> > Thus workers who appear to be productive to a firm of investment
> > bankers, and who get fat annual bonuses as a result, can
> > be unproductive from the standpoint of capital as a whole.
> >
> >
> > > In _recognizing_ this distinction, we can not
> > > take it over wholesale since the *working-class perspective* on who
> > > is "productive" is not the same as the capitalist perspective. From
> > > a working-class perspective,  workers need to comprehend how they
> > > are *united*  regardless of their diversity even while coming to terms
> > > with that diversity.  This *unity-in-diversity* by the working class
> > > presupposes that alliances will be developed among all workers
> > > including those who political economy defines as being unproductive.
> >
> > You should not wish for the impossible. You have to be able
> > to formulate a program that will unite a sufficiently broad
> > coalition to be effective, but if you try to accomodate the
> > interests of the financial sector employees you end up with
> > Tony Blair's version of socialism.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > (NB: this does not, though, necessarily mean that managers are
> > > productive of surplus-value.  In addition to your point 3. in [8359],
> > > we should note that although they receive wages, they are not
> necessarily
> > > wage *workers*.   Even capitalists themselves, after all, can pay
> > > themselves wages: this accounting maneuver does not miraculously
> > > transform them into wage-workers.)
> > >
> > > Solidarity, Jerry
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
> 


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 00:00:00 EST