From: Paul Bullock (paulbullock@ebms-ltd.co.uk)
Date: Wed Jan 22 2003 - 13:09:51 EST
Dear PC, No I only got this enquiry, no reply from you, nor anything from OPE-L... you'll have to try again all round. Cheers Paul B ----- Original Message ----- From: <clyder@gn.apc.org> To: <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 12:36 PM Subject: [OPE-L:8369] Re: Re: Re: Re: Education and Value > 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