Nathan Newman wrote:
>This is a bizarre definition of "productive" to begin with.
-I've always wondered if this usage was an instance of Marx's irony - -taking the classical distinction between productive & unproductive, -and turning it into a critique of both capitalism and its economics. -It doesn't matter what kind of "crappy shit" (as he put it in the -Grundrisse) you make, just as long as you make a buck for the boss.
But even by that definition, a worker in a Medicaid hospital who provides health care for a Wal-Mart worker is helping the company make money by keeping the workforce functioning just as much as a for-profit hospital worker does.
A government researcher whose work ends up in a pharmaceutical product makes money for the boss as well.
The capitalist system depends on the public sector in a range of ways to keep its profits going, so however you slice it, it's a strange use of the word.
Nathan Newman