Alejandro R wrote on Tue, 4 Nov:
> Jerry, I think this is a false analogy. In a commodity producing
> society there are different kinds of (concrete) labors and, at the
> same time, all of them are part of a totality, social (abstract)
> labor. This is so because, actually all labors, though indirectly,
> are inteconnected between them. There is not such a "totality" of
> cats and, therefore, there is not an "general" or "abstract cat."
If you accept the above, then the distinction between productive and
unproductive labour vanishes. I.e. if all concrete labor is part of a
"totality" of "social (abstract) labor", then all labor is productive and
none is unproductive.
> In a commodity producing society, money, as GENERAL commodity
> expresses externally the this GENERAL or ABSTRACT labor. Labor as
> represented by money has no distinction at all, neither qualitative,
> nor quantitatively.
No distinction? What about the money allocated for variable capital vs.
the money which represents a deduction from surplus value for payment to
unproductive labor? This seems to be a qualitative distinction to me even
though the units of account paid to both types of workers remains the
same.
In solidarity, Jerry