Re: [OPE] Reply to critics

> Jerry, you're most certainly making an assumption. You're assuming that
> 'produces a surplus-value' in the passage means 'produces a new
> surplus-value for capital as a whole'. That's not how it's written.
 
 
Hi Paula:
 
 
Marx doesn't use the latter expression; he uses the former expression as
shorthand for the latter.
 
But, we're not getting anywhere. I say it should be interpreted one way.
You say it should - or can - be interpreted another way. What do others
on the list make of the quote which was cited and whether it can/could be
interpreted in different ways?
 
 
 
> > What makes the labor employed by 'retail' ... [unproductive] ... is that
> > labor
> > assists the realization of surplus value, not its creation.
>
> This is a mere tautology. You'll need to dig deeper if you want to figure
> out in what sense retail labor is unproductive, and why.
 
 
 
Oh??? It's merely a 'tautology' to distinguish between the production/creation of
surplus value and it's realization??? Methinks the word 'tautology' is used to
loosely in these discussions.
 

>
> > Hence, the labor
> > of actors or a clown employed by a capitalist firm really has nothing in
> > common with the sectors you mentioned.
>
> What they have in common is that neither produces commodities, which to my
> understanding are goods produced for market exchange.

 
What I asked of you, instead, was to indicate what wage labor employed
by capital which produces commodities as physical goods has in common
with wage labor employed by capital to act or clown: the answer is that
they have EVERYTHING in common except one type are physical goods and the
other are services.
 
In solidarity, Jerry
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Wed Oct 20 08:32:55 2010