I wrote:
> > that's not true. Most important to Marx is the subjection of
> > labor by capital, i.e., the control over the labor-process by
> > capital, enforced by the reserve army of labor.
Lew wrote:
> Not as an explanation of Marx's concept of *productivity*.
> Rather, it is
> developments in the forces of production (which includes
> human labour) which
> lead to increases in productivity. Certainly Marx never
> identified markets
> *per se* as increasing productivity.
you're right. But "increasing labor productivity" is how (positive) developments in the forces of production is typically summarized and/or measured. (Of course, as I said in a separate missive, I said that labor productivity is very hard to measure, especially when comparing different systems.)
Jim D.