One political reason I don't like the p/u labor distinction is that emotionally it seems to line up in people's minds with p=good, necessary, justified, would exist under socialism, u= bad, wasteful, unwarranted, only exists under exploitative systems like capitalism. This is apart from other, analytical objections. I am not sure whether you are falling into this trap, TW, but you could be read as doing so. Look, in my understanding, p labor means p of surplus value, a concept that only makes sense under capitalism or anyway under generalized market systems of commodity production. Both p and u labor, if the distinction makes sense, may be necessary for producing SV, or for reproducing the system in which it is produced. Thus if labor in the sphere of circulation, financing deals for corporate acquisitions, for example, is u labor, it is nonetheless necessary in capitalism. If it is unnecessary, unwarranted, and wasteful, that is only because capitalism might be replaced by a system that serves human needs and satisfies demand but does not (perhaps) have SV because V is a concept that doesn't operate. Or insurance -- I'm not sure that one wouldn't need insurance even under socialism, although it might be socially/publicly financed -- but anyway to say that it is only necessary under capitalism is sort of like saying that private profit is on;y necessary under capitalism (or simple commodity production).
--- Tahir Wood <twood at uwc.ac.za> wrote:
>
> > --- Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Minor point: it's not about the production of a
> >> physical object -
> >> services can be "productive" in this view. The
> >> transportation of
> >> vehicular components can be productive. The
> >> transportation of people
> >> to visit grandma isn't.
> >>
> >
> > [WS:] But what the operational criteria to
> > distinuguish between productive and unproductive
> > services? Is transporting people TO work
> productive?
> > How about transporting them FROM work?
>
> Don't ask me. I think the whole distinction is a
> waste of time.
>
> As I recall, Shaikh & Tonak develop the distinction
> in their book on
> translating the national income accounts into
> Marxese.
>
>
> There's something wrong here, at least from a
> position that is critical
> of capitalism. Yes, you can criticise the way the
> distinction has been
> made: For example those feminists who criticise Marx
> on the grounds that
> he failed to take into account reproductive labour
> as being productive
> have a point. Housework, child rearing, etc. all
> help to reproduce the
> labour force and therefore contribute to the value
> chain. But to say
> that there is no meaningful distinction has some
> pretty weird
> implications for non-capitalists. It means, for
> example, that a fortune
> teller's one hour of labour is equally productive to
> that of an engineer
> or a bicklayer or a train driver. Yes I do think
> that trapnsporting
> workers to and from work is productive; I don't
> think that selling
> insurance is ultimately productive. The fact that we
> need insurance if
> we own property is a fact that makes sense only from
> the point of view
> of private property. One could make similar points
> about credit, etc. Of
> course if you think that capitalism is the only
> possible way of life
> then sure, anything that makes a profit is
> productive. Why not cime too
> then? What makes doing deals outside of the law
> unproductive and doing
> deals inside the law productive?
> Tahir
>
>
> > All Email originating from UWC is covered by
> disclaimer
>
http://www.uwc.ac.za/portal/public/portal_services/disclaimer.htm
>
> > ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping