From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Tue Nov 04 2003 - 09:19:43 EST
Hi Phil. > Yes. it is certainly necessary to make the distinction between productive > and unproductive labour. But I look at all private sector labour as > productive. All private sector labor is not engaged in production. Are security guards in a factory 'productive'? Their function is to prevent the theft of value. How are corporate lawyers productive of surplus value? Their function is to represent the interests of individual capital in state-related matters. If money is paid out as wages for endorsements by celebrities for marketing purposes, how is that activity productive of surplus value? Some of these expenses might be viewed as *faux frais* -- but some of them are very far from being 'incidental' expenses. In discussing *frau frais de production* in "Results of the Immediate Process of Production" , Marx makes an interesting assertion that we may or may not agree with: "Further examples are legal proceedings, contractual agreements, etc. All matters of this sort are concerned with stipulations between commodity owners as buyers and sellers of goods, and have nothing to do with the relations between capital and labour. THOSE ENGAGED IN THEM MAY BECOME THE WAGE-LABOURERS OF CAPITAL: BUT THIS DOES NOT MAKE PRODUCTIVE WORKERS OF THEM." (Volume 1, Penguin ed., p. 1043, emphasis added, JL) (This subject is also discussed in Volume II, Ch. 6 "The Costs of Circulation".) > Whereever there is profit there is productive labour. Profit can be _transferred_ from one capitalist to another through rent even where the recipient of the transfer does not employ wage labor -- let alone productive labor. E.g. the profit can be transferred directly into the bank account of another capitalist. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 07 2003 - 00:00:00 EST