> 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).
------------------------------------------------
I think I understand the theoretical distinction. I'm having difficulty with
its real world implications and utility. The statement that "in any society,
REGARDLESS OF ITS SPECIFIC MODE OF PRODUCTION" (my caps), all labour which
produces use-values is "productive" says to me that public sector workers
are included. The statement that under a CAPTALIST mode of production,
labour must ALSO be productive of "surplus value" (profits) says otherwise
to me. That's why I'm having trouble reconciling the two.
And to echo Wojtek: In what way does it contribute to our understanding to describe wage-earners who don't contribute to capitalist profits as "unproductive", as somehow being "unhealthy" for the system? I certainly can't answer that directly, and I don't see where those who simply and unfairly dismiss him as an apologist for neoclassical economics for saying so do so either.
In fact, most lay people hearing that said about public sector workers don't regard it as a "scientific" and "value-free" judgement but a pejorative, and consider its provenance is right-wing, from those who defend "profit" against "big government". That's certainly how public sector workers see it. Its practical interpretation is in itself almost reason for the concept to be retired, or to be at least modified as you propose, following O'Connor. Further to this, I'm still waiting for an answer from Yoshie or anyone else as to how you would justify the right to collective bargaining and strike rights for these workers if they are indeed an "unproductive" drain on society. I don't think this is what Marx had in mind, not least because, as I noted previously, he didn't contemplate the growth of a huge and complex public sector in a still expanding and relatively stable capitalist system. I think cops and domestics were more what he had in mind, no?