From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Fri Jan 18 2008 - 15:18:20 EST
> > Evidently therefore he regarded the definition of PUPL as being > determined BOTH by the nature of the output, AND by the social > relations (if you like, the relevant property rights) within which it > was created. Not just anything could be commodified, it depended > contingently on technological, economic and social conditions. In this > sense, both the use-value and the exchange-value of the > labour remained important to the definition of PUPL. > > As a general norm, he argues that: > > "If we have a function which, although in and for itself unproductive, > is nevertheless a necessary moment of [economic] reproduction, then > when this is transformed, through a division of labour, from the > secondary activity of many into the exclusive activity of a few, into > their special business, this does not change the character of the > function itself" (Capital Vol. 2, Penguin ed., p. 209). > > The point however is that changes in the division of labour might > render labour PL, even although it was previously U, or vice versa. > > ----------------------- I had taken him to be saying the opposite there, that the labour remained unproductive even if special businesses sprang up to perform it.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 31 2008 - 00:00:06 EST