<< t's hard enough, it seems, to define "productive" labor. But leaving that
aside, what's the point of the category?
>> I suppose there is no point - in the ultimate sense that all workers are exploited (some to a much greater degree than others). On the other hand, Marx tries to recognize that the production process is complex, and that different labors play much different roles.
I think the GM example is most telling: manufacturing has "very good" cost accounting data: Mr. Smith pretty much knows the unit labor content per car (measured in minutes!). Now with the exception of that gut at Ford, Smith hasn't a fucking clue how to assemble a car (let a lone change the oil). Smith has a MUCH different role in the creation of profits that somebody on the line. The cost accountants surely know this in spades - one of THE major headaches is how to spread Smith's bonus (and other perqs) into overhead.
This problem of "spreading the overhead" has become a nightmae in many not-for-profit instituions (got to hide the CEOs salary from the IRS form 990) Anybody done this for BAI?
Jason
Jason