From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Thu Jan 31 2008 - 10:38:48 EST
Surely what Dave is doing is applying abstraction. He is abstracting from the effects of commodity fetishism to get down to the reality behind the fetishism. GERALD LEVY wrote: > Dave: > > The whole dispute, to seems to me, revolves around the issue > of whether one accepts that the productive/unproductive > distinction has basically the same meaning in all class societies > or whether it is specific to capitalism. You claim that there is > a trans-historical sense to the distinction which can be applied > to comprehending what is productive of surplus value under > capitalism. If one doesn't accept that claim (which I don't) then > it's hard to see how we could agree on these questions. > > What you call the 'historical materialist' approach may well > help us to comprehend the character of non-capitalist societies. > If comprehending the character and dynamic tendencies of > capitalism was that simple, though, then one wouldn't need to utilize > the power of abstraction to disentangle what appears to be the > case from what it actually the case under capitalism. > > In solidarity, Jerry > > > > Jurriaan, you raise several points. Let's not go too fast ahead. > > > > To begin with the fundamental: The very notion of > productive/unproductive > > economic activities implies that the former is 'necessary' or 'basic' in > > some specific economic sense since a fraction of its surplus support > > supports the unproductive ones. > > By definition, unproductive activities are a drain on the social surplus > > product. An expanding unproductive sector of the economy must be > supported > > by more surplus labour in the productive sectors. These are all > > historically invariant concepts, applicable to any mode of > production, not > > merely capitalism. >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Feb 02 2008 - 00:00:05 EST