> Marx's concept of (un)productive labor centered on productive labor
> producing surplus-value, promoting the fortunes of the capitalist
> class as a whole. Indirectly productive labor (to use Jim
> O'Connor's concept) -- often hired by the government -- promotes
> surplus-value production without actually participating in the
> capitalist production process. (E.g., a public-school teacher
> teaches someone to read, so that the capitalists who hire her or
> him don't have to do so.)
>
> Another concept should be added: profit-promoting labor vs. not-
> profit-promoting labor. The former benefits _individual_ employers
> (though not necessarily the capitalist class as a whole) and the
> latter does not (though it might be beneficial to the capitalist
> class as a whole). The former might include advertising people (who
> simply redistribute demand from one capitalist's product to
> another, if that) while the latter might include the public school
> teacher mentioned above.
>
> We can imagine two scenarios. The first is the one that Bush seems
> to be striving for, having the government and the capitalists do
> whatever's the most profit-promoting for individual capitalists
> (and damn the torpedoes, goddamnit). In this case, we'd see
> slashing of government jobs _even if_ they the indirectly promote
> surplus-value production. We'd see a lot of jobs shifted to private-
> sector production (i.e., privatization), where they might promote
> private profits. We'd also see a lot of work being done in the
> private sector which is highly profitable even though it doesn't
> promote the production of surplus-value much at all (e.g., Doug's
> friends in the financial sector).
>
> I would think that this scenario wouldn't pan out for the
> capitalist class as a whole in the long run, since the emphasis is
> on individual capitalist needs rather than on class interests.
If public education promotes accumulation, in what way does it do so? Workers in a modern economy need to be able to read, to be sure,, but, for that purpose, primary education alone should mostly suffice. For most jobs that US capitalists need to staff, US workers are overeducated and overqualified, notwithstanding what Bill Gates says; and for a minority of US jobs that do need the highly educated, US capitalists can poach by importing workers or offshoring jobs.
If public education promotes accumulation, it probably does so mainly not by educating US workers but buying class peace (e.g., keeping young people off the streets, so they won't become Wojtek's dreaded gangs at least for the hours they spend at school).
The public sector's value of promoting class peace, however, gets highly discounted by capitalists when workers don't seem to threaten class peace anyway, no matter how many attacks are inflicted on them.
> On the other hand, there's the scenario that might be preferred by
> social democrats, in which there's an effort to make capitalism
> more rational. There, the emphasis of state activity would be on
> activities that are either necessary or indirectly productive of
> surplus-value. There might be an effort to limit the excesses of
> private capital, e.g., sectors that don't really contribute to the
> health of the "economy" (i.e., surplus-value production). A Tobin
> tax might be imposed on the financiers, etc. This would most likely
> promote the long-term health of the capitalist economy.
If social democrats had pursued "rational capitalism through long- term investment" in the 70s, could they have restored profit rates?
Where profit rates are already restored and soaring, there is room for "rational capitalism through long-term investment," but whenever economy gets into difficulty, it seems irresistible to restore profit rates by attacking workers, e.g., by busting unions, shrinking the public sector, etc.
Yoshie Furuhashi <http://montages.blogspot.com> <http://monthlyreview.org> <http://mrzine.org>