From: michael a. lebowitz (mlebowit@SFU.CA)
Date: Sun May 16 2004 - 22:17:16 EDT
At 19:38 16/05/2004, jerry wrote:
>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.
That's not the issue--- it's whether the macworker is in the sphere of
production or the sphere of circulation.
m
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>"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
Michael A. Lebowitz
Professor Emeritus
Economics Department
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6
Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at
Residencias Anauco Suites
Departamento 601
Parque Central, Zona Postal 1010, Oficina 1
Caracas, Venezuela
(58-212) 573-4111
fax: (58-212) 573-7724
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 18 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT