[lbo-talk] an alternative conceptual framework.

[Marvin Gandall]

The conceptual problem arises, it would seem, because Marx did not
anticipate the great growth of the public sector and service economy and
integrate this into his theory. After all, why would he have?  He concluded
the the changing organic composition of capital and falling rate of profit
would produce ever deeper crises and immiseration and finally the
replacement of capitalism by public ownership - if not in his lifetime, than
in the short run. There would no longer be private ownership and surplus
value and profit, making the issue of "productive" and "unproductive" labour
moot. Under socialism, the continuing replacement of variable with
labour-saving constant capital would not result in joblessness and distress
but more leisure time for the working population and the means to enjoy it.
You have to think if he had been able to witness the unexpected expansion
and relative stability of capitalism, fostered by state intervention and
accompanied by the concomitant rise of a parallel "indirectly productive"
public sector workforce, he would have further developed the theory pretty
much along the lines you describe below.

MG

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim Devine" <jdevine03 at gmail.com>
To: "LBO" <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 7:09 PM
Subject: [lbo-talk] an alternative conceptual framework.


> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Of course, the second scenario seems unlikely unless people rebel
> enough against the _status quo_ that the rulers get scared.
>
> (this is from a very unpublished paper of mine.)
> --
> Jim Devine
> "The price one pays for pursuing any profession or calling is an
> intimate knowledge of its ugly side." -- James Baldwin
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>