[OPE-L:8376] Re: Re: Re: unproductive labour

From: rakeshb@stanford.edu
Date: Wed Jan 22 2003 - 19:07:17 EST

Quoting Paul Cockshott <paul@cockshott.com>:

> One has to be cautious not to mistake ones wishes for reality. It
> would
> be nice if all employees had, underneath it all, a common 
> but
> I dont think we can assume this.
> I think that there are real contradictions between the working 
> interest in general and certain groups of employees. In 
> 1. Employees whose income is above the value they create are
>     recipients of surplus value, as such they are subsidised by
> others
>     and have a built in interest in preserving this position.
> 2. Employees who are paid out of surplus value, rent, or profits
>     are dependent on the contiunity of these income streams and
>     as such have interests opposed to productive workers.

Yes but capital must keep a tight lid on the wage demands of 
those workers paid out of surplus value--unproductive, albeit 
oppressed, workers as Carchedi puts it--if the reproduction of total 
social capital is to yield  a positive uniform rate of profit across all 
its sectors--industrial, commercial and financial. Capital pays to all 
these workers--exploited productive and oppressed 
unproductive--only that wage which allows for the reproduction of 
labor power and the continuous expenditure of labor.  The unity of 
the working class is thus founded on their wages (collectively and 
individually) being driven to the reproduction costs of labor power. 
Capital relies on this whether the workers are productive or 
By your reasoning, productive laborers would have an interest in 
driving the wages of unproductive labor below the value of its labor 
power in order to prevent capital from having to do the same to 
their own wages as a countertendency to FROP.  Or by your 
reasoning productive labor should welcome the automation of 
fnancial and circulation activity without any social insurance for the 
technologically unemployed because such insurance would only 
deprive capital of surplus value that  it will have to try to win back by 
accentuating the exploitatoin of productive labor. 
I don't understand this attempt to drive yet another a wedge into the 
working class.  We already have enough disunity across national, 
so called race and gender boundaries. Do we really need a new 
division in the form of productivist ideology?

Yours, Rakesh

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 25 2003 - 00:00:01 EST