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

From: Dave Zachariah (davez@KTH.SE)
Date: Sun Jan 13 2008 - 12:51:51 EST

on 2008-01-13 18:03 Philip Dunn wrote:
> I read the article some time ago. By fiat, it is possible to define
> Department III as unproductive. It would also be possible to define it
> as wholly productive. I doubt if the question can be decided in an a
> priori fashion. My taste is to regard as much as possible as productive
> unless a very good reason can be given for thinking otherwise.
> For example, I would treat advertising as a non-wage cost much like any
> other. Others would see it a deduction from surplus value. How can you
> tell?

Well, in the example it easy to tell the difference. The unproductive
costs for Departments I and II are clearly not a part of W and M, which
are the *costs of production*.

If you say that Department III is productive you are frankly asking the
wrong question. The whole point of the productive/unproductive
distinction originates in the fact that some economic activities cannot
exist without support of surplus labour performed in other ones.

Since we both agree that

    "Domestic service as unproductive labour is uncontested"

Then it makes no difference whether capitalists employ servants directly
or buy their services from some capitalist firms.

//Dave Z

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