From: Ian Wright (ian_paul_wright@HOTMAIL.COM)
Date: Fri Nov 07 2003 - 18:01:29 EST
Hello Jerry, >The distinction between productive and unproductive labor is not based >on which individuals (and segments of classes) perform "useful" labor. > >If capitalists are productive of surplus value then the whole theory of >surplus value collapses, imo, since if everyone is exploited then no one >is exploited. I must admit I do not understand the distinction between productive and unproductive labour. I tend to think that if someone is willing to pay for some labour then it is productive in the economic sense, irrespective of whether that labour is productive from some moral or utilitarian point of view. But I am looking at it this way: in principle a capitalist can create value by their labours, just like anyone else. But surplus value is precisely value workers do not receive -- but capitalists do. So although some capitalists may create value they are not exploited because they receive any surplus value created in the form of profits. Here's a concrete example: a firm of 10 employees and 1 capitalist owner. The owner works a normal day just like the workers, and performs similar tasks. The product contains the labour of 11 workers. But the revenue from that product isn't split into 11 roughly equal shares. There are 10 wage incomes and 1 profit income. Assuming profits are made, the capitalist owner gets it, and is therefore not exploited. What's wrong with this? A lot of rubbish is written to hide or justify the fact that capitalist owners receive profit income from firm revenues solely in virtue of their ownership relation to the means of production. I agree that this often takes the form of an argument that the labour of capitalists is somehow special and very valuable, e.g. "entrepreneurial ability". But I think it would be wrong to deny that individuals who hold capitalist property cannot create value. I do not see a causal connection between holding capitalist property and not in principle being able to perform labour that is embodied in a product that gets sold in the market. Of course, I'd guess that most big capitalists do diddley-squat, but that's not the point here. -Ian. _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 09 2003 - 00:00:01 EST