Michael J Williams (michael@williamsmj.screaming.net)
Sat, 2 Oct 1999 22:05:55 +0100
----- Original Message -----
From: Jurriaan Bendien <djjb99@worldonline.nl>
To: <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu>
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 1999 6:17 PM
Subject: [OPE-L:1403] Re: Still more on advertising and productive labour
In all significant respects, I think that J.'s summary is excellent.
>
> Maybe I am mistaken, but I thought it was totally obvious to the point of
> being a platitude that a real capitalist economy cannot be indifferent to
> use-values.
It is. You have quoted my opening remark, but not the argument that
followed, to the conclusion that technical indispensibility of the use-value
of the output is niether a necessary nor sufficient condition for the labour
concerned to be productive. It is that technical relevance of use-values
that is captured in Sraffa type models,
> Indeed, my understanding is that Marx's Capital Vol. 2 is in
> good part devoted to this very point, since it raises the question how
> different classes of goods can be produced distributed and traded in
> proportions such that a relative equilibrium and expanded reproduction can
> result. In the real world this is not an automatic process and hence firms
> cannot be indifferent to it, even though they do not control the
production
> and distribution process overall (for that you would need a planned
economy).
I would only gloss this a little: capital is indifferent to the use-value
composition of output. it is just seeking profits. Individual capitalists
qua character-masks are thus also indifferent.
>
> So the system is not indifferent to the kinds of use-values being
produced,
> but profoundly influenced in its very functioning by those use-values.
I have already dealt with this: relevance of use-value for capitalist
reproduction is an important issue. But it is not what the (un)productive
labour distinction is about.
Michael
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Mon Jan 03 2000 - 12:18:29 EST