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

From: Philip Dunn (hyl0morph@YAHOO.CO.UK)
Date: Sat Jan 12 2008 - 08:17:40 EST

On Sat, 2008-01-12 at 02:32 +0100, Dave Zachariah wrote:
>  From the standpoint of a capitalist firm its workforce is 'productive'
> if it is profitable. However, when one considers the capitalist economy
> as a whole it becomes evident that the output of some sectors are at the
> expense of the surplus created in others. The latter sectors are
> productive, the former are merely parasitic on them. This includes the
> financial sector, advertisement, armament etc.

How does it become evident? Why are the financial services, advertising
and armament industries deemed to be parasitic on surplus value created
elsewhere? Of course, it is possible arbitrarily to stipulate this. Is
the ground for the distinction a feeling of distaste for these

Yahoo! Messenger - with free PC-PC calling and photo sharing.

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