>I keep hearing statements about how the concept of productive labor
>is central to Marxian analysis, and the basis of all sorts of
>fruitful insights,
Jeez, Doug, I think I have shown how on the basis of said distinction a marxist analysis of state spending was developed that demonstrated the unsustainability, impotence, and counterproductiveness of debt financed state spending even before the Keynesian project went up in smoke in the 70s, provides an explanation for the weak macro effects of deficits in the 80s, and clarifies why govts around the world have been trying to get their houses in order in the 90s. Mattick's analysis of the limits of the mixed economy, developed at the height of the haugtiest self confidence of Keynesian technocrats, presents itself one of the most successful predictions in the social sciences.
On the basis of said distinction, a critique has indeed been developed of social democratic and left keynesian answers to accumulation crises. This is not only a fruitful insight but a clarification of the tasks of the class struggle. I think the resolute anti Keynesianism of Mattick, Coontz, Cogoy, Yaffe, Rachleff, Moseley, Shaikh/Tonak represents an important current within Marxism.
Yours, Rakesh