1. In the first place, you seem to agree that the labor of pure and
simple buying and selling (exchange of commodities for money or vice
versa) does not produce additional value. Now, this buying and selling
may of course be done by wage-laborers working under capitalist
relations (indeed usually is) and may also be done by specialized
commerial capital firms. However, these particular conditions do not
change this unproductive function into a productive function. A
function which is unproductive when it is performed by capitalists
themselves or by small independent merchants or by wage-laborers
working with industrial capital firms, does not become a productive
function when it is performed by wage-laborers working within
comercial capital firms and sold as a "commodity" to industrial
captital.
So at least we should be able to agree that this specific strata of
capitalist wage-labor (which is a sizeable chunk of the total "circulation
labor") does not produce value or surplus-value. Right ?
2. The rest of what Marx called "circulation labor" (accounting, debt-
credit relations, advertising, etc.) perform functions that, while not
actually buying and selling, are necessary parts of the overall exchange
process. The exchange of commodities involves not only the actual
transfer of commodities and money, but also keeping track of sales and
purchases in capitalist accounting books, providing credit and keeping
track of debt payments, advertising to maintain or increase sales, etc.
Marx argued in chapter 6 of Vol. 2 ("costs of circulation") that these
related necessary functions involved in the overall exchange process
also do not produce value and surplus-value.
Now, these functions can also of course be performed by wage-
laborers working within specialized commercial capital firms.
However, as in the case of pure buying and selling, the fact that these
functions are performed by wage-laboreres and sold as commodities
does not turn these unproductive function into a productive ones.
Again, a function which is unproductive when it is performed by
capitalists themselves or by small independent merchants or by wage-
laborers working with industrial capital firms, does not become a
productive function when it is performed by wage-laborers working
within comercial capital firms and sold as a "commodity" to industrial
captital.
So it seems to me that our basic disagreement is whether or not
unproductive "circulation labor" should be defined broadly to include
there related functions which are necessary to the exchange process.
And we may just have to agree to disagree on this point for now. It
seems to me to be a reasonable extension. But at least we should be
able to agree that IF this labor is unproductive when performed by
capitalists themselves or by independent merchants or by wage-
laborers working with industrial capital firms, then it will continue to
be unproductive when it is performed by wage-laborers within
commercial capital firms and sold to industrial capital as
"commodities". The particulars of who performs these unproductive
functions and whether or not they are sold as commodities do not alter
their unprodutive nature.
I look forward to your response.
Comradely,
Fred