From: Dave Zachariah (davez@KTH.SE)
Date: Sun Jan 20 2008 - 06:33:25 EST
on 2008-01-19 19:03 Jerry Levy wrote: > how can workers be both productive of surplus-value _and_ "parasitic"? The RUPE article does not mention surplus-value, just the fact that the *material* surplus from agriculture and industry must support the service sector. There is nothing controversial about this. A significant part of the service sector does not enter the reproduction of the Indian working population; to that extent the growth of this sector is "parasitic". (I have certainly not claimed that the entire service sector is unproductive or that industry is productive.) In a previous post (Fri Jan 18 2008) I gave a very simple example that answers your question: a capitalist employing a servant or buying the same service of some capitalist firm. While the firm earns surplus-value through the expenditure of labour of its workers, it is a transfer of the surplus-value generated elsewhere. The situation is identical if you substitute "servant" for "workers producing a luxury yacht" or any other material good. //Dave Z
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 31 2008 - 00:00:06 EST