From: Philip Dunn (hyl0morph@YAHOO.CO.UK)
Date: Sun Jan 13 2008 - 16:03:34 EST
On Sun, 2008-01-13 at 18:51 +0100, Dave Zachariah wrote: > on 2008-01-13 18:03 Philip Dunn wrote: > > I read the article some time ago. By fiat, it is possible to define > > Department III as unproductive. It would also be possible to define it > > as wholly productive. I doubt if the question can be decided in an a > > priori fashion. My taste is to regard as much as possible as productive > > unless a very good reason can be given for thinking otherwise. > > > > For example, I would treat advertising as a non-wage cost much like any > > other. Others would see it a deduction from surplus value. How can you > > tell? > > > > Well, in the example it easy to tell the difference. The unproductive > costs for Departments I and II are clearly not a part of W and M, which > are the *costs of production*. > > If you say that Department III is productive you are frankly asking the > wrong question. The whole point of the productive/unproductive > distinction originates in the fact that some economic activities cannot > exist without support of surplus labour performed in other ones. > > Since we both agree that > > "Domestic service as unproductive labour is uncontested" > > Then it makes no difference whether capitalists employ servants directly > or buy their services from some capitalist firms. > > //Dave Z > . Ah, but that is the question -- does it make no difference? If a capitalist hires Menials'R'Us to provide home comforts, some would say that the workers employed by said firm are productive. Again, how can you tell? ___________________________________________________________ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 31 2008 - 00:00:06 EST