[lbo-talk] Unproductive Workers = The Best Organized in the USA

Marvin Gandall marvgandall at videotron.ca
Fri Jan 20 07:59:00 PST 2006


Carrol wrote:


> While I agree with Jim that philological questions are less important
> than direct questions about the world, STILL if we are talking about
> Marx we ought not to impose _our_ use of words on _his_ use of words.
> And if we do that, then "productive" DOES NOT MEAN USEFULE. It is a
> technical term. Unrproductive DOES NOT MEAN NOT USEFUL. It is a
> technical term.
>
> On the whole, unproductive labor is of more human use, more beneficial
> to the whole species and to the individual, then is most productive
> labor.
>
> And your reply also shows that Yoshie's attempt to finesse this problem
> of the "feeling" in words has failed. Profit-making vs Not Profit-making
> is subject to all the same verbal quibbles and misunderstandings as are
> Marx's terms. To use Marx's own example, when Milton sold PL for #5 he
> was not a productive laborer but a petty producer because he did not
> produce surplus value for a capitalist. The sleezeballs that write lying
> horseshit for Periodical X are productive laborers because they produce
> surplus value for the capitalists who own X.
>
> I have no opinion on whether productive/unproductive labor is a useful
> concept for economics. But before worrying about the economic meaning of
> the terms one _should_ I think view them as anthropological and
> historical terms -- ultimately, cultural terms, not as economic terms
> and CERTAINLY not as terms expressing a judgment of the worth of the
> activities so described.
-------------------------------------- Not to put words in your mouth, but to better understand the above: If you're saying that you're agnostic about the value of Marx's analysis of the inner workings of the system outside of the period in which he wrote, and that his real genius lay in his use of the historical materialist method - in particular, his understanding of the class conflicts arising from the development of the forces and relations of production - then I think I would agree. But I studied history rather than economics so I'd be likely to have that bias.

I'm not sure your Milton example is really germane. He was self-employed, and the discussion has turned on the distinction, if any, to be drawn between wage-earners in the private and public sectors.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list