[lbo-talk] an alternative conceptual framework.

[Marvin Gandall]

Just got back and am working my way through this excellent and - for me at
any rate, sometimes difficult - thread in which your contribution is, as
usual, very informative and thought-provoking in distinguishing between
Marx's use of the various value categories. However, I don't know how to
reconcile your statement that "in any society, regardless of its specific
mode of production, labour is productive if it results in a use value" with
"in a capitalist society, labor is productive if...it is also productive of
surplus value." The discussion was sparked by Yoshie's characterization of
government workers as "unproductive" and your two statements, unless I
missed something, could, it seems to me, be used to either support or refute
her position. Things are best understood in relation to each other, so can I
ask you where do you stand in relation to her position? And to Jim Devine's
notion of "indirectly" versus "directly" productive labour as an extension
or modification of the LTOV, which I find persuasive? And perhaps also to
the critiques of the "use value" of the theory itself, expressed strongly by
Woj and, I think, to a milder degree by Doug and others. That seems like a
lot to throw at you, but you can understand I'm really issuing a more
general invitation to all the participants to try and pull the scattered
conversations together so the theoretical differences - and (especially) the
practical implications - can be made more comprehensible for many of us on
the list. In this vein, I would really look forward to your writing that
promised "note on the meaning in Marx of "sociological" categories of
"worker," "producer," "proletarian," etc., which have been confused a lot" -
assuming young Erik the Red gives you some time to do so, of course. :)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Julio Huato" <juliohuato at gmail.com>
To: "Lbo Talk Lbo Talk" <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 9:45 AM
Subject: [lbo-talk] an alternative conceptual framework.


> Hi Marv.
>
> I understand, and construe, the concepts of productive and
> unproductive labor in Marx in a layered form:
>
> In any society, regardless of its specific mode of production, labor
> is productive if it results in a use value.  Use values are physical
> goods that meet any kind of "material need" whether it is a "material
> need" for human affection, knowledge, ideas, food, etc. (more on this
> below).
>
[...]


> In a capitalist society, labor is productive if -- besides being
> productive of value -- it is also productive of surplus value, i.e.,
> more value than required to merely cover the cost of labor ("variable
> capital").  Here, labor spent producing commodities by, say, a farmer
> who owns her/his land and other means of production, and works by
> her/himself, is productive of value and, therefore, productive of use
> value, but not productive of surplus value or productive in the
> capitalist sense.  Note that labor cannot be productive of surplus
> value if it is not productive of value and, therefore, of use value.
> Surplus value is simply value but beyond a point, so it must be use
> value in the first place.
>
> In a capitalist setting, teachers or hospital workers who work for a
> public entity are not considered productive of surplus value, since
> they are not working directly for a private capitalist.  But they are
> certainly productive of use value.  Taxes are somewhat disconnected or
> mediated (e.g., not proportional to use, nontaxpayers may have
> entitlements, etc.) from the direct use of public goods and thus the
> distribution of these goods cannot be viewed as a market transaction
> between taxpayers and public agencies.  However, if a public agency
> sold the good to the public, then the labor of those public employees
> would also be productive of value (still, not of surplus value).
>
[...]


> I may write later a note on the meaning in Marx of "sociological"
> categories of "worker," "producer," "proletarian," etc., which have
> been confused a lot.  But let me say here that I don't mean to imply
> that people (e.g., Marxists or philo-Marxists) should stick to Marx's
> usage -- he wasn't always completely consistent and his terms evolved
> over his intellectual lifetime as he needed them to evolve.  One step
> of real political progress is much more important than loyalty to old
> terms, which many become confusing and outdated as the contemporary
> references are lost to new readers and other things change.  The
> dynamics of human language and scientific terminology is a hardened
> objective process too and individuals cannot pretend otherwise.
> Still, it's not a bad thing to straighten these things out
> philologically, if not for other reason because semantic and
> terminological discussions sometimes help illuminate substantive
> issues in the present.
>
> Julio
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>