Re: Productive and Unproductive Labor

[glevy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Paul Z. wrote:

> Jerry is making a important point here, but it seems to me that driven to
> its conclusion all commodities have use-values and we lose any meaningful
> approach to unproductive labor.

Paul, I don't know what to make of the above.  Firstly, the "driven to
its (logical) conclusion" mode is a very dangerous mode of argument, it
seems to me. Secondly (if I am reading you correctly), you are saying
that all commodities do not have use-values. Please explain this to me, I
find it very confusing. Thirdly, you seem to be saying that if all
commodities have use value, then there is no unproductive labor.  Now, I
am really lost. Please explain.

  Marx was quite clear that there is
> unproductive labor so was he wrong (illogical) or was he attempting to
> deepen understanding of capitalism.

Marx was indeed "attempting to deepen understanding of capitalism" and he
was quite clear that there *is* unproductive labor.  He was not wrong or
illogical for so understanding, in my view.  But, what does this have to
do with what we have been discussing?  I thought we were talking about
what constitutes productive vs. unproductive labor in both abstract terms
and concrete instances.

  Perhaps examples would be useful
> here, Jerry.  I gave the example of automobiles versus tanks; can you
> offer your interpretation of whether tank production consists of
> productive or unproductive labor?

OK, let's talk about this.  Tanks, unlike automobiles, are sold
exclusively to the state.  While most tanks are produced by capitalist
firms who employ wage labor, they produce a product rather than a
commodity in the sense that this product is not marketed but is purchased
directly by the state with monies that come from state revenues, as per a
special arrangement between the state and the firms. For the above
reasons, I would say that wage labor employed by tank producers is
unproductive.

If tanks were sold on the market as commodities, then ...?  Well, we all
know that certain firearms are produced by capitalist firms who sell
these products as commodities. Are Colt 45s commodities?  I think they
can be. Can a proportion of the wage force employed by Colt be seen as
productive laborers? Yes, I think they can.

Why not?  Colt 45s have both a use value and a value, don't you think?
You seem to be suggesting that tanks and guns do not have a use
value  and therefore they can not be commodities and therefore labor can
not be productive of value or surplus value. *Why* don't Colt 45s have a
use value? They satisfy a (perhaps twisted) human need, understood in a
broad social and historical sense, but they are *not* products intended
to "sustain human life."  Is that why they can not become commodities, in
your view?  I believe we have a different understanding regarding use
value. Colt 45s can be used to kill, it is true, but that does not mean
that they don't have a use value, in my view.

> Defining unproductive labor in a meaningful way has dramatic implications
> for estimates of the magnitude of the rate of surplus value .... (snip)

I'm sure this is true. Since you go on to say that this kind of empirical
work is needed, we should go on with this thread so that we can define
unproductive labor in a more meaningful way.

Jerry


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------