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:
> on 2008-01-11 23:13 Philip Dunn wrote:
> > 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?
> >
>  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.
> In short, productive labour is that labour whose output directly or
> indirectly goes into the reproduction of the working class.
> Paul C and I have written an article on this, published in Science and
> Society. You can find a copy here:
> //Dave Z

All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine

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