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

From: clyder@GN.APC.ORG
Date: Sun Jan 13 2008 - 14:19:49 EST

> 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.

Our argument is that

1. Marx says productive labour is that which is productive of surplus value.

2. The main mechanism that capitalism has for producing surplus value
   is technical advances which reduce necessary labour time - relative
   surplus value.

3. Because of the interelated character of production, relative surplus
   value's production may be distal to its realisation.

4. To produce relative surplus value a production process must be
   Sraffian basic or must produce wage goods.

5. Hence only these are productive.

You ask about advertiseing.

What would be the impact on overall profitability if the government
were to ban advertising on TV and newspapers.

Since all firms would simultaneously be relieved of the advertising
cost, the result would be a rise in overall profitability. Hence
the advertising costs must be unproductive.

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