Why not have two concepts of [productive labour? Given the Sraffa model, it
makes perfect sense to define labour as labour that directly or indirectly
enters into all commodities (it defines the overall rate of profit in an
economy). We could call this 'productive 1" or "productively consumed"
labour. The other concept of "productive labour that makes perfect is the
idea of a the labour of a someone productively employed in a capitaist
system, ie labour that exchanges with capital. We could call that
"productive 2" labour, or the the labour of "productive employees". Then we
would not have to argue about what 'productive" labour truly is. I think
that Marx mainly means "productive 2" when he speaks of productive labour,
but he sometimes slides into something like "productive 1" (the scope of
"productive 1" labour depends on whether you have a strictly Sraffian model
where wages are a share of surplus, or a more Marxian model where wages are
costs of production. Wage goods are on the same foting as luxury goods in
the former but like capital goods (intermediate goods) in the latter),
cheers,
Ian
Associate Professor Ian Hunt,
Head, Dept of Philosophy,
Director, Centre for Applied Philosophy,
Philosophy Dept, School of Humanities,
Flinders University of SA,
Humanities Building,
Bedford Park, SA, 5042,
Ph: (08) 8201 2054 Fax: (08) 8201 2556
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 27 2000 - 15:27:09 EST