To begin with, I agree with Mike that services can be
commodities. But I also think that, according to Marx's
theory, a distinction can be made between productive
services and unproductive services. If a service performs
a function related to the circulation of commodities (e.g.
trade services, accounting services, financial services)
then, according to Marx's theory, these services are
unproductive, even though they may be sold as a
commodity. On the other hand, services not related to
circulation (e.g. haircuts, concerts) that are sold as
commodities are productive.
I have already discussed in recent OPEL posts Marx's
rationale for this distinction - that Marx assumed that
EXCHANGE IS ESSENTIALLY THE EXCHANGE OF
EQUIVALENTS, from which it follows that the various
labor activities related to exchange do not themselves
produce additional value. Mike responded to my earlier
post that I "read too much" into Marx's assumption of the
exchange of equivalents. But I still do not see how it
could be otherwise. If no value or surplus-value is
produced through the activities of exchange, then the
labor required for these activities clearly do not produce
value or surplus-value, i.e. are unproductive labor.
So, I ask Mike again: Why is this not sufficient
rationale?
Comradely,
Fred