Yes. I am sure. Compensation according to labor a nonmarket system CANNOT be computed according to value.
^^^^ CB: Marx , who is the originator of concept of "value" as you use it here, seems to think that there are mixed systems in the transition from capitalism to socialism. In other words, it is not a completely non-market system.
^^^^
Where there is no labor market or generalized commodity production, THERE IS NO VALUE. If you don't understand that value theory is a theory only for generalized commodity production, you're out of the ballpark, whoever "you" are. ^^^^^ CB: Well, if "you" are Karl Marx, I'm going to listen to your comment. And Marx made a comment that suggests something different than what you are saying here.
^^^^^
This point is not arguable by serious readers of Marx and I am not going to argue it. Anyway, Marx did take apart at the joints some hapless contemporary who proposed a Parecon like scheme of compensation by units of labor time -- not value in Marx's sense, a sense of the term value at the time peculiar to him. I have mislaid the reference. The remark in CGP about remuneration according to labor says nothing about value,
^^^^ CB: It logically implies something about value, since it speaks of labor and in the Marxist system, labor is the source of value. Comments about labor automatically say something about value in this theory.
^^^^
and it wouldn't, because unlike the early Bolsheviks, Marx understood his own theory reasonably well. Nor does it involve a labor chit system, unless Marx cahnged his mind after his demolition of the proto Alber-Hahnel, which I doubt. What it means is somewhat opaque, BUT NOT GERMANE HERE, because it is not discussing CAPITALISM but a postcapitalist society.
^^^^^ CB: I was commenting on a comment you made on a postcapitalist society, so it's germane to something you said about a postcapitalist society on this thread.
^^^^^
Therefore my theory about what the poassage in CGP means means (I have one, in fact I've published it, citation on request) is irrelevant to my question.
Can we get back to my question?
^^^^ CB: We can discuss both questions.
^^^^
I agree that there is potential for an insustance on the p-u distinction to be politicatically divisive. But that is not an answer to my question, which is, does it make sense in capitalism?
^^^^ CB: The unproductive productive distinction arises in Marx's _Capital_. A Marxist discussion of capitalism should never confine itself to only capitalism, but rather it must discuss capitalism in capitalism's self-changing into socialism, and in terms of the class struggle and working class struggle as important in changing capitalism into socialism. The dialectics of Marxism is that it insists on discussing capitalism in terms of the change of capitalism into socialism, not a fixed and permanent capitalism. So, a Marxist approach demands that discussion of postcapitalist society be included as germane in discussions of capitalist society.
Productive and unproductive labor should be discussed in terms of ending capitalism, not as some improvement over bourgeois economics in understanding how permanent capitalism