[lbo-talk] an alternative conceptual framework.

[Jim Devine]

On 1/19/06, Marvin Gandall <marvgandall at videotron.ca> wrote:
>...  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 first statement refers to productive of use-value (i.e., useful to
someone, no matter how silly their needs may be). The second refers to
the production of surplus-value (which is what capitalism's health is
all about).


>... And to Jim Devine's notion of "indirectly" versus "directly"
productive labour as an extension or modification of the LTOV, which I
find persuasive?<

FWIW, it's Jim O'Connor's extension/modification.

--
Jim Devine
"The price one pays for pursuing any profession or calling is an
intimate knowledge of its ugly side." -- James Baldwin

This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from
http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm