>Two problems with this kind of discussion (about the productive
unproductive labor distinction >being necessary for a theory of surplus
value, class struggle, and a social science of capitalism)are :
>
>1. No one has published a non-tautological proof that capital exploits
labor. Thus the category >"exploitation" is defined and used in all
kinds of ways. It is a tautological proof that SV is the >difference
between the value of labor power and the value of the product of labor;
a >non-tautol;ogical proof requires empirical observation of the labor
market and the exact nature of >the wage bargain, that is, a proof that
requires both sociological and economic observations.
I'm puzzled by this tautological/non-taulogical distinction, Jim. The wage bargain is about wages, only. That fact that it excludes profits (surplus value) establishes the unequal labor market exchange between capital and labor, and thus the exploitation of labor by capital. Capital accumulates surplus value; labor consumes its social subsistence. The direct, work place wage bargain, then, is a struggle over money (but not real) wages, as capital tries to drive them to social subsistence (or below), and labor tries to capture some of realized surplus value as wages. Examination of this bargain yields information about the relationship between sv and v, but not about the origin of sv or the exploitation that underlies it. The explanation of exploitation is to be found in the unequal exchange, not the direct wage bargain. Isn't this a non-tautological proof?
Note: My email is all screwed up. I'm using that fly-by-night nonprofit, lefty, IGC. Hope to get it straightened out one of these days and respond to some of the other stuff you posted, Jim