Re: [Marxism] Rakesh on productive labor

[eatonak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Rakesh, thanks for your earlier remarks.  Fashionable or not, I am still
pro-working class.  However, as I wrote in several places, I do not think
that the distinction between PUPL has anything to do with any criterion
for identifying members of working class.  PUPL distinction is especially
useful (and necessary) to map value (and surplus-value) production and
circulation so that we can develop a macro accounting framework for
LTV-based empirical analysis.

Ahmet


> Jurriaan wrote:
>
>>Well, just to round off this discussion, Rakesh wrote:
>>
>>"But no working class party can be rooted in hired dependents--e.g. state
>>employees, employees in non profit institutions--rather than wage
>> workers."
>>
>>I do find this a curious statement, insofar as state employees and
>> employees
>>in non-profit institutions are in their majority also salaried workers. I
>>think a kind of prejudice involved here which is not helpful - imagine
>> going
>>on television and saying "no working class party can be rooted in hired
>>dependents--e.g. state employees, employees in non profit
>>institutions--rather than wage workers". Who could accept that kind of
>>statement, or take it seriously?
>
> My point is not that difficult: in the struggle to end the
> exploitation of the many for the profit of others, only wage workers
> among whom are included commercial, banking and industrial
> proletarians can and will play the leading rule, not hired dependents
> paid out of expended revenue. I thus define wage labour as exlusively
> a relata in the capital relation. Other paid dependents (or
> dispossessed workers dependent on hire) are classified as hired
> dependents, and are considered unproductive, though many people will
> move between the two categories. The analytical distinction is thus
> not a hard classification of persons.
>
> [Capitalistically] productive labour in Marx's narrow sense is by
> virtue of its unique ability to bring capital to its knees the only
> potentially revolutionary class, though through its actions it will
> doubtless rally others to its side.
>
> This is an unfashionable thesis about an unfashionable class.
> Including among Marxists.
>
> Rakesh
>
> _______________________________________________
> Marxism mailing list
> Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism
>

_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism