From: Diego Guerrero (diego.guerrero@CPS.UCM.ES)
Date: Fri Oct 07 2005 - 04:42:24 EDT
Paul wrote: Smiths concept of productive labour was tied to accumulation. For him labour is productive if it contributes to accumulation. He gives two definitions of this: 1. That the labour must be employed out of capital not revenue 2. That it must fix itself in a vendible commodity I think he was right to give both definitions. The first definition presents the matter from the standpoint of the individual capitalist, that he will get poor by employing servants out of revenue but rich from employing workers out of capital. The second definition applies from the standpoint of the economy as a whole. The economy as a whole can only accumulate physical commodities - it can not accumulate banknotes or haircuts. Diego: Are you telling again that producing haircuts is unproductive of surplus value? Is production of bread productive? I don't think that bread can be accumulated. Is not money what can be accumulated, and money can come from anywhere? Which do you prefer: Smith's view or Marx's?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Oct 08 2005 - 00:00:01 EDT