From: Ian Hunt (ian.hunt@FLINDERS.EDU.AU)
Date: Wed Nov 01 2006 - 19:00:59 EST
Yes, in Capital Vol 1, Karl distinguished between the productive and unproductive role of capitalist supervisors: the necessary labour of coordination was counted as productive but supervision of the labour process process to ensure production of surplus value for the capitalist was counted as unproductive. Similarly, labour of distribution that brought use values to the point of consumption is to be counted as productive, while the labour involved merely in exchange of property title is counted as unproductive. Marx here seems to have in mind by 'productive' labour that it is technically productive: at another point in TSV, he defines 'productive labour' in terms of its social relations of production. In this sense, only labour productive of surplus value is counted as productive. It remains an exercise to see whether these definitions can be made to do useful work, Cheers, ian > > But (i) the notion that supervisory labour is necessarily "unproductive" >is >> a formalistic Marxism, which has nothing to do with Marx. > >Jurriaan: > >Don't you recall the following? > >"...the wages of superintendence do not enter [into the] average rate of >profit at all". [TSV, Part III, Progress ed., p. 505]. > >In solidarity, Jerry -- Associate Professor Ian Hunt, Dept of Philosophy, School of Humanities, Director, Centre for Applied Philosophy, Flinders University of SA, Humanities Building, Bedford Park, SA, 5042, Ph: (08) 8201 2054 Fax: (08) 8201 2784
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 30 2006 - 00:00:06 EST