From: Paul Bullock (paulbullock@ebms-ltd.co.uk)
Date: Fri Jan 17 2003 - 15:44:50 EST
Dear Tony, Your conclusion is horribly wrong.......May I suggest you read TSV 1..... if the distinction between productive and unproductive labour in Vol 1 capital hasn't got you yet. Good reading Paul Bullock ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Tinker" <tonytinker@msn.com> To: <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 9:34 PM Subject: [OPE-L:8341] Re: Re: Re: Re: Education and Value > Re: your suggestion below, that MBA's are 'unproductive'. > > My criterion of productive is strictly one of 'surplus value' producing, > and therefore contribute to the reproduction of capital (and thus the > capital-labor relation of expropriation). And yes certainly, mercenaries > (and probably state-financed troops -- state capital) would indeed qualify > as productive as they are wage labor, form part of a wage labor market, and > are productive of surplus value. > > This identification is important, because the wage relation (regarded in > this manner) embodies the contradictions make the transformation of > capitalism possible. > > Fraternally, > > Tony Tinker > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <clyder@gn.apc.org> > To: <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu> > Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 8:57 PM > Subject: [OPE-L:8339] Re: Re: Re: Education and Value > > > > Quoting Tony Tinker <TonyTinker@msn.com>: > > (I assume that we agree that MBA's are now wage labor and therefore > > > productive of surplus value). > > > > > > > > > > I would tend to doubt it. Much of what they do when they work > > is surely unproductive. Getting a wage is not enough to make > > labour productive or you would have to conclude that soldiers > > are productive since they are the prototypical example of wage > > labour. > > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jan 19 2003 - 00:00:01 EST