On 09/17/99 at 08:56 AM, "Michael J Williams"
<michael@williamsmj.screaming.net> said:
>it is unproductive - not because it produces those socially
>useful outputs (capital is not *against* such production, per se, but
>indifferent to it), but because it is not employed under capitalist
>direct relations of production, and so does not create surplus value.
>Hence the continual pressure from capital to 'privatize' such activities.
Paul C. responds to this by pointing out that unproductive labor is a
subset of labor employed under capital, that just being employed by
capital is insufficient as a definition of productive labor. I think his
example RE: Coke and Pepsi internal advertising is also useful.
>I could try to see better where Paul is coming from if he leavened his
>heavy sarcasm with a little connected argument.
Sorry. (Jurriaan started this thread with a "mightly silly" reference
which didn't help set a good tone.)
Concerned connected argument, I thought I tried in:
"In other words, anything goes. If the product produced under capitalist
relations is "successful" (it sells?) then "productive labor" is involved.
Whatever shall be, shall be. Using the result ("success") to describe
the antecedent (type of labor involved) is circular, i.e., there is no
definition of use-value involved, only the result."
I didn't notice if you answered this which was my responding to your
request for more specificity on circularity (no being sarcastic is being
intended in this answer). To extend the debate into a completely
different turf: if someone says "person x is dead" (a result), it would
not necessarily be correct to infer gangrene.
Paul
***********************************************************************
Paul Zarembka, supporting RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY at
******************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 27 2000 - 15:27:09 EST