From: Philip Dunn (hyl0morph@YAHOO.CO.UK)
Date: Sat Jan 12 2008 - 08:17:40 EST
On Sat, 2008-01-12 at 02:32 +0100, Dave Zachariah wrote: > on 2008-01-11 23:13 Philip Dunn wrote: > > Domestic service as unproductive labour is uncontested (AFAIK). However, > > in this case, no question of addition or subtraction arises. The wages > > of the capitalist's domestic servants are paid out of surplus value, but > > do not reduce or increment surplus value in any way. The capitalist > > simply chooses to spend income in this way. > > > > I have never understood quite why it is thought that any capitalist > > businesses are unproductive or that there can be some unproductive waged > > workers employed in such businesses. Is the PA who buys the birthday > > present for the boss's wife unproductive in that activity? > > > > From the standpoint of a capitalist firm its workforce is 'productive' > if it is profitable. However, when one considers the capitalist economy > as a whole it becomes evident that the output of some sectors are at the > expense of the surplus created in others. The latter sectors are > productive, the former are merely parasitic on them. This includes the > financial sector, advertisement, armament etc. > > In short, productive labour is that labour whose output directly or > indirectly goes into the reproduction of the working class. > > Paul C and I have written an article on this, published in Science and > Society. You can find a copy here: > http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/unprod3b.pdf > > //Dave Z ___________________________________________________________ All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 31 2008 - 00:00:06 EST