From: Gerald A. Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Sun May 16 2004 - 19:38:35 EDT
Hi Mike L. > Would people agree that the macworkers are not only exploited > but also the source of surplus value? Sure. If an opera singer employed by a capitalist firm can be productive of surplus value then why not MacDonald workers? The distinction between productive and unproductive labor should not be confused with whether the form that a commodity takes is a tangible material product or a service. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "An actor, for example, or even a CLOWN, according to this definition, is a productive labourer if he works in the service of a capitalist (an entrepreneur) to whom he returns more labour than he receives from him in the form of wages." (_Theories of Surplus Value_, Part I, Progress, p. 157, emphasis added). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Does this mean that, according to Marx's understanding, a man or woman dressed up in a Ronald MacDonald suit is productive of surplus value? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 19 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT