On 09/17/99 at 06:04 PM, "Michael J Williams"
<michael@williamsmj.screaming.net> said:
>Or, more helpfully for me, what is the coherent basis upon which a
>distinction between labour unproductive of surplus value and that
>productive of surplus value (redundantly - under capitalism) can be
>developed by reference to the category 'use-value'?
This is too broad a question, at least for me. To keep matters at their
simplest, I had referenced an example like Coke and Pepsi advertising
which has no use value vis-a-vis the production of means of production or
the production of consumption goods (whether subsistence or luxury). I
don't accept that empty propaganda is a use value (nor do I accept
referencing use-value by trying to relate it to a capacity to induce a
sale).
It seems to be that only if we could reach agreement on the simplest could
we hope to get to a next step.
By way of exception, I heard of some people in Poland who actually liked
to watch TV advertising when it first started because they hadn't
experienced it before under state owned TV. I could possibly be persuaded
that that "enjoyment" (whatever it is) was a product of productive labor
produced under capitalist relations of production, but we are far, far
beyond that. I offer this exception to illustrate that I would look at
Department II for a possible "use value" in a case like this.
Paul Z.
***********************************************************************
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