Ian wrote in [ope-l 3842]:
>Does a worker who recharges an instrument of
>labour eg, fills a paint gun, work on the instrument and not on the object?
>Does a worker who programs a CAD tool work on the instrument and not on the
>object? This is a pointless distinction, so far as I can see. It is at odds
>with the notion of the collective labourer which is at the centre of Marx's
>analysis of capitalist production.
>
Chai-on:
Well, it depends on what sort of painting he is working on. If the painted
machine is to be out for sale, the work is a direct labor. If the painted
machine is to be used for other commodity productions, it is a maintenance
work.
The paint filled in the paint gun is an ancillary material. Neither an
instrument of labor nor the object of labor.
A worker who programs a CAD tool work on the object of labor if the CAD tool
is to be sold for money. If the CAD is to be used for other production, he
is working on the instrument. A machine is a commodity when it is out for
sale. The criterion is not on its use-value but on the way it is used.
Yes, it is at odds with the notion of the collective labourer which is at
the centre of Marx's analysis of capitalist production. The wages for a
staff of engineer, carpenter, mechanic, fitter, etc. form part of the
variable capital as they are organs of a collective laborer. Like the labor
of a supervisor, it is both productive and unproductive.
I hope we can exchange more discussions so as to make my point clearer.
In solidarity
Chai-on