>Doug has a point about much of the previous stat work in this area. It
>hasn't been very good. My point, however, is that it is fertile ground, the
>kind of analysis most likely to produce real understanding.
What kind of understanding? You concede:
>The ratio of unproductive to productive labor has been growing in this
>century (see Fred Moseley, James Becker), rather continuously, with no
>necessary connection to either prosperity or depression. The question
>implies an equation of unproductive and useless. Not so. Unproductive
>labor is still useful to capital, and its wages are one way surplus value is
>realized (investment outlets being insufficient to absorb all of it, this is
>always a problem for capital).
You also say:
>When fully developed, the P/U distinction is useful, however, to show the
>different functions labor performs for capital, which leads naturally to an
>analysis of the difficulties of creating a cohesive consciousness among the
So we have a concept that has proven irrelevant so far to the performance of capitalism. Not surprising, since capitalists - in their politics as well as their investment decisions - react to the phenomenal categories of profit, interest, and rent. But it's also one that some workers might find insulting - who wants to be called unproductive? - so it's politiclaly worse than useless, it's divisive and alienating in terms of organization & consciousness. The capacity of capitalism to colonize & transform the "unproductive" is an element of its wicked genius. So why is this such a fruitful area of research? I'm profoundly mystified.
Mike Lebowitz' piece on The Silence of Capital that Angela pointed to <http://english-www.hss.cmu.edu/govt/silences-of-capital.txt> is great stuff.
Doug