Michael J Williams wrote:
> > 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
>
> Such advertising has a use-value for the marketting department of Coke or
> Pepsi. That is why they are prepared to pay for it, and why the service can
> be sold as a commodity. What I am seeking - in all good faith - is your
> reason why you think that this advertising service is not, in principle,
> produced by labour productive of surplus value? More precisely, what is it
> about the demand emanating from the marketting department of Coke or Pepsi
> that disqualifies the usefulness they patently find in the products of the
> advertising agency from counting as a use-value?
__________________
Let us suppose I have a some sort of monopoly business and I keep a few
musclemen on my pay role to drive out any attempted competition in my business.
Of course there is a use value for me of the services of the musclemen, but
would you classify the services of these musclemen as productive labor? The
question of productive and unproductive labor should be settled on the whole
economy level and not at the individual capitalist's level. Labor spent to
protect one's market share is not producing any use value for the economy as a
whole. If we look at the cold drink sector as a whole then we cannot put in such
commercials that are designed to protect market share as part of the input cost
for that sector. That's why it cannot be considered productive by the scientific
criteria. Cheers, ajit sinha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 27 2000 - 15:27:09 EST