> You don't seem to know what a definition of
> a technical term is. What your are writing
> here may be corect, it may be wrong, but in
> either case it has nothing to do with
> understanding Marx's Critique of Political
> Economy. "Productive Labor" is a technical
> term there, and it is _ddefined_ by Marx in
> the sense it bears in his theoretical work.
> Your post can't be relevant to that since
> you want to argue with Marx not on reality
> but on how he uses words.
Marx's presented his work as a progression -- going from highly abstract determinations to concrete manifestations. The content of Marx's categories evolved as he progressed in his work. If you don't grasp this, how can you grasp his critique of political economy?
Moreover, Marx left his work unfinished -- and that in accordance with his latest plan. As Marx advanced in his studies, he modified his plans. So, one would expect that the content of his categories would have shifted further had he been able to pursue his plan(s). And one would expect that content to evolve further as science developed (and continues to develop) after him.
Marx's "definitions" are necessarily provisional. He complained about having to deal with the dilemma of postulating definitions upfront when his definitions needed prior substantiation -- i.e., when he needed to show the progression in the content of his definitions. Like all scientists trying to communicate his results, he had to interact with his audience, which start from a certain point. Marx's definitions are always valid only under certain assumptions, which sometimes he clearly stipulated upfront. Sometimes you have to infer those assumptions from the context.
Now, if you read carefully what I wrote in the post you replied to and in the other one I linked, you'll see that I try to make clear what the assumptions are at each point. If you have read Capital, you'll be able to see where in the scheme of the book, those assumptions fit.
When I wrote, "from the viewpoint of..." I was trying to do that precisely.
Here's a procedure that Marx followed repeatedly. If you are going to examine a particular phenomenon, first consider its parts in isolation; and, afterwards, look at them in their unity, as a totality. The phenomenon he was trying to grasp, which got him into critiquing political economy, was historical capitalism -- the oppressive conditions under which he lived. Now, look at his plan. He intended to write on capital first, because that's what would give you most mileage in understanding concrete capitalist societies. After all, capitalist societies are dominated by capital. However, capital was only one side of a much more complex totality. Consequently, he intended to devote another hefty book to wage labor. And so on.
Looking at capital, he decided capital was the unity of capitalist production and circulation. So, he wrote one book focused on capitalist production. And left material for Engels to compile another book on capitalist circulation and a third book on the totality of capital as production and circulation together. He also left material for Kautsky (and Soviet specialists) to compile a fourth book on the history of ideas, and for others to publish his drafts as separate books, etc.
Can you see how Marx's notion of productive labor has to be seen as evolving or, at least, as conditional upon particular assumptions? Marx argued with himself. This was inherent to his approach. We should argue with him and with ourselves.