Re: [OPE-L] Marx and the maximum rate of profit

From: Ian Hunt (ian.hunt@FLINDERS.EDU.AU)
Date: Wed Nov 01 2006 - 19:00:59 EST

Yes, in Capital Vol 1, Karl distinguished between the productive and
unproductive role of capitalist supervisors: the necessary labour of
coordination was counted as productive but supervision of the labour
process process to ensure production of surplus value for the
capitalist was counted as unproductive. Similarly, labour of
distribution that brought use values to the point of consumption is
to be counted as productive, while the labour involved merely in
exchange of property title is counted as unproductive. Marx here
seems to have in mind by 'productive' labour that it is technically
productive: at another point in TSV, he defines 'productive labour'
in terms of its social relations of production. In this sense, only
labour productive of surplus value is counted as productive. It
remains an exercise to see whether these definitions can be made to
do useful work,

>  > But (i) the notion that supervisory labour is necessarily "unproductive"
>>  a formalistic Marxism, which has nothing to do with Marx.
>Don't you recall the following?
>"...the wages of superintendence do not enter [into the] average rate of
>profit at all". [TSV, Part III, Progress ed., p. 505].
>In solidarity, Jerry

Associate Professor Ian Hunt,
Dept  of Philosophy, School of Humanities,
Director, Centre for Applied Philosophy,
Flinders University of SA,
Humanities Building,
Bedford Park, SA, 5042,
Ph: (08) 8201 2054 Fax: (08) 8201 2784

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 30 2006 - 00:00:06 EST