Re: [OPE-L] "parasitism" of the service sector?

From: Jerry Levy (jerry_levy@VERIZON.NET)
Date: Sat Jan 19 2008 - 13:03:38 EST

> See

Hi Dave Z:

There is a clear productivist bias to the rupe statement of
the issue.  The relative growth of the service sector of an individual capitalist economy - even that of a (so-called) "backward economy" - does not *necessarily* hinder growth and accumulation within that economy.  As I have suggested previously, if there is growth in the service sector, the surplus-value created in that sector can be used to stimulate employment and output in other parts of that economy (or abroad), including agriculture and industry.  The 'rupe' position  is also self-contradictory if it's claimed that there is variable capital in and surplus value created in the service sector: how can workers be both productive of surplus-value _and_ "parasitic"?  The argument made about how the services sector is largely "parasitic" is off-base because it erroneously suggests a one-way relationship
between the sectors.

In solidarity, Jerry

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