From: Ian Hunt (ian.hunt@FLINDERS.EDU.AU)
Date: Wed Nov 01 2006 - 22:49:59 EST
Dear Jerry, As you say, it depends on what 'superintendence' means. I also agree that a bit of hyperbole is involved in the claim that the idea of unproductive labour of superintendence has 'nothing to do with' Marx, etc, Cheers, Ian >Hi Ian: > >I did not intend to revisit the entire debate on the wages of >superintendence. My only point is that the suggestion that >supervisory labour under capitalism is unproductive "has >nothing to do with Marx" is manifestly false. Jurriaan and >others are free to disagree with the suggestion that the >wages of superintendence are best conceived of as a deduction >from surplus value (or, as a second option, as faux frais of production), >but please don't suggest that it is merely a "formalistic Marxism" >and "has nothing to do with Marx". I, of course, grant that other >interpretations of Marx, citing other writings, are possible, but to >reject a position as having "nothing to do with Marx" when there >is evidence to the contrary is a bit much. > >In solidarity, Jerry > >Jurriaan wrote: >> But (i) the notion that supervisory labour is necessarily "unproductive" >> is a formalistic Marxism, which has nothing to do with Marx. > >JL wrote: >> >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]. -- 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