> In short, whether labor creates tangible goods or intangible services
> and whether labor is productive or unproductive (of surplus value) in
> Marx's sense are two different questions. There have always been (A)
> productive labor that creates things, (B) productive labor that offers
> services, (C) unproductive labor that creates things, and (D)
> unproductive labor that offers services. Which kind is proportionally
> expanding or contracting, which kind is playing the leading or
> subordinate role in reorganization of production, distribution, and
> consumption, etc. are very interesting and important questions. It is
> good that Italian theorists called attention to that, but just because
> we are interested in trends they sought to describe doesn't mean that
> we have to adopt their theory or terminology.
I think it's as possible to say as much with different terminology as it is to use the same terminology to mean different things. Virno, however, anchors the fusion of the productive/unproductive and material/immaterial distinctions in some passages in the Results of the Immediate Process of Production, including the following:
"On the whole, the kinds of work which are only enjoyed as services, and yet are capable of being exploited directly /in the capitalist way, /even though they cannot be converted into products separable from the workers themselves and therefore existing outside them as independent commodities, only constitute infinitesimal magnitudes in comparison with the mass of products under capitalist production. They should therefore be left out of account entirely, and treated only under wage labour, under the category of wage labour which is not at the same time productive labour."
Obviously, it would be dogmatic to simply take the above as gospel But here is indeed a passage that suggests the two different questions may be considered to merge in at least the specific circumstance addressed. Note that the merger is not (explicitly at least) substantive but is only with regard to how to treat the category -- presumably BECAUSE those kinds of work don't add up to much quantitatively. Now it seems to me that what Virno, at least, is doing is questioning the status of that fusion. And questioning it, moreover in a potentially very constructive way. This I would contrast with a less textually-honed impulse to simply treat "makers" as more productive (in a vulgarly physical and subsistence-oriented way) than "talkers". An old ("red neck") friend of mine drives a back-hoe which he contracts with the gas company to install and maintain gas lines. He never tires of reminding me of the distinction between the "real work" that he does and the parasitism that the other 90% of us do. Needless to say, he's also right-wing, racist, sexist and a garrulous drunk.
Now, according to the authoritative LBO Snit Poll, 33% of respondents were either unemployed or self-employed. We're talking classic definition of immaterial labour. "Behind the label of the independent "self-employed" worker, what we actually find is an intellectual proletarian, but who is recognized as such only by the employers who exploit him or her. It is worth noting that in this kind of working existence it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish leisure time from work time. In a sense, life becomes insepable from work." (Maurizio Lazzarato, "Immaterial Labor")
But, not to become hamstrung by terminology, consider Voß and Pongratz's 'labor power salesperson' (der Arbeitskraftunternehmer):
"Because the labor-power salesperson aligns him/herself with the firms’interests to such a far-reaching extent and controls the transformation of his/her labor power into labor, s/he brings the conflict of interest within him/herself. [...] The conflict of interest appears less and less in the form of the industrial era between labor and capital, and more and more between two sides of one and the same person -- the class struggle is transplanted within the heads and souls of employees" (cited in Kinderman, "Pressure from Without, Subversion from Within: The Two-Pronged German Employer Offensive").
The Sandwichman (who bears the immateriality of his labour [with a smile!] like a sign)