Re: [OPE-L] The lump of surplus value fallacy and the Moseley paradox

From: Philip Dunn (hyl0morph@YAHOO.CO.UK)
Date: Fri Jan 11 2008 - 17:13:16 EST

On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 21:02 +0100, Jurriaan Bendien wrote:

> Ironically, the same authors who argue that the wages of unproductive
> workers are a "deduction from surplus value" (which is actually
> literally an expression Marx uses in his manuscript) include those
> wages as a portion of surplus value, in their social account of gross
> product (e.g. Shaikh & Tonak, Moseley).

Domestic service as unproductive labour is uncontested (AFAIK). However,
in this case, no question of addition or subtraction arises. The wages
of the capitalist's domestic servants are paid out of surplus value, but
do not reduce or increment surplus value in any way. The capitalist
simply chooses to spend income in this way.

I have never understood quite why it is thought that any capitalist
businesses are unproductive or that there can be some unproductive waged
workers employed in such businesses. Is the PA who buys the birthday
present for the boss's wife unproductive in that activity?

Inbox full of spam? Get leading spam protection and 1GB storage with All New Yahoo! Mail.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 31 2008 - 00:00:06 EST