> If you don't *like* Marx's analysis, that's
> fine. I am not arguing for Marx as a god
> whose truths are unquestionable. What I am
> arguing against is using Marx's categories
> in a way that contradicts Marx's own usage,
> and then trying to pass it off as Marx's
> usage.
Please see my reply to Carrol.
In the post I linked, I tried to provide my interpretation of Marx's notion of productive labor in the context of his work and approach to the matter. Admittedly, the basis of my interpretation is my reading of *translations* of Marx's work (into Spanish and English). My German is next to nonexistent. But, as of now, I defend my interpretation as valid.
Even if we circumscribed things to an exegesis of Capital and the Surplus Value Theories, I don't think one can limit the content of Marx's category of productive labor to (as you claimed) --
> labour that sold in the form of a commodity
> (or more correctly, labour that has been
> performed after labour-power has been sold
> as a commodity) to a capitalist
Just go to Capital vol. 1, ch. 7, section 1, where Marx examines the labor process in general, and you'll find productive labor "defined" as productive of *use values* alone!
Here, click on the link below, press Control+F, and type "productive labour":
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch07.htm
Finally, I didn't *like* Marx's work, I would not spend so much time arguing about it.