----- Original Message -----
From: <zarembka@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU>
To: <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu>
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 1999 2:14 PM
Subject: [OPE-L:1251] Re: Advertising and productive labour
> To me your argument is simply circular, since it is bought and sold, voila
> advertising is a product of value creating labor (with no discussion of
> the substance of the use-value involved, if any). It reifies what exists.
The specific difference between productive and unproductive labour is that
the former produces surplus value, whilst the latter does not. This has
nothing to do with the nature of the use-value produced - except that for
surplus value to be produced the product must be a successful commodity, and
so must have a use-value for someone. I do not understand your use of
'reofoes' here?
In the first instance, I base the distinction on whether the labour in
question is performed under captialist direct production relations. If it
is, and the capital concerned is reproducing, then that labour is indeed
producing a commodity. Where is the circularity?
I would be interested in a brief outline of how you differentiate
(un)productive labour by reference to 'the substance of the use-value
involved'.
>
> The end of that song is "let's call the whole thing off". I'm not really
> proposing that, but I don't suspect we will get very far either (or
> eether).
As I understand the de facto rules of engagement on this list, anyone can
disengage, with or without notice, at any time.
Michael
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 27 2000 - 15:27:09 EST