[OPE-L:5115] waste, value, and potential

["Gerald_A_Levy" <Gerald_A_Levy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Michael P's recent book _Transcending the Economy:

On the Potential of Passionate Labor and the Wastes

of The Market_ (NY, St. Martin's Press, 2000; ISBN

0-312-22977-1) raises some issues which have not

been systematically addressed by either mainstream

(neo-neo-classical) theory or heterodox theories, including

Marxist theories.

 

An indication of the later point can be seen in Ch. 5

("A Review of the Literature") in which the few sources

where waste has been discussed in mainstream economic

theory are reviewed.  There is no mention at all of any

specifically Marxist literature on waste. Perhaps there

is some Marxist literature on waste, maybe in non-

English languages, that Michael is unaware of?

 

This doesn't mean that Marx and Marxist perspectives

aren't discussed. There is a very brief mention of Fred's

and Shaikh/Tonak's writings about unproductive labor

(pp. 9-10), but Michael adds "My concept of waste

goes considerably further than these calculations of

unproductive labor".  I agree that Michael *does* go

much further in analyzing waste, but I wonder: why

weren't the subjects of value and unproductive labor

more explicitly brought to bear on a discussion of

wealth?  I.e. even if one says that one needs to go

*beyond* the prior Marxist discussions of value,

shouldn't those discussions be discussed, evaluated,

and critiqued?  Perhaps the answer is to be found in

the intended use for the book, i.e. it is intended, it seems,

to me to be a "popular" book suitable perhaps for

undergraduate classes (in what I'm not sure).

 

Marx is discussed briefly, especially in connection with

Ch. 5 ("Conflict in the Production Process"), but his

analysis is not examined systematically as it relates

to other subjects in the book, imo.  Why this is the

case, I'm not sure. Perhaps it is grounded in the belief

that there isn't all that much in Marx on the subject of

waste and we need to deepen our analysis beyond what he wrote? To some degree, I agree. Yet, it seems to me,

that the connections of Marx to the subject of waste

can be more deeply explored. Indeed -- perhaps we can

have that discussion here on OPE-L?

 

Let's see if we can identify a broad framework (outline

if you will) in which we can discuss waste, value, &

wealth (and something Michael calls "passionate labor").

Here are some ideas for broad subjects for discussion:

 

I) Waste of Value

 

a) waste of labor-power

 

    To begin with, we have to look at waste from a *class

    perspective* it seems to me. E.g. *from the standpoint

    of capital*  the decline of child labor might be seen

    as wasted potential. Not so from the *perspective of

    the working class*.   Similarly, if absolute surplus

    value is decreased by a shortening of the working

    day or the workweek, this might be seen as wasted

    potential from the perspective of the capitalist class.

    Not so from the perspective of the working class.

    Also, a decrease in the intensity of labor might be seen

    as wasted potential from the standpoint of capital yet

    it would be seen otherwise by the working class.

 

    Another area in which this differing perspective can

    be seen (and this gets us a little closer to the concept

    of "passionate labor") are differing concepts of *leisure*.

    From a capitalist perspective, and from the standpoint

    of the Protestant work ethic, leisure is waste (especially

    if its leisure by the working class!).  Yet, increased

    leisure time is something that the working class

    struggles for. Also, while a vacation (e.g. sailing by

    a working-class family) might be seen as wasted

    potential by capital, it is seen as *pleasure* by the

    working class. Indeed, it is *for pleasure* (and passion),

    in addition to merely subsistence, that workers work

    for, right? 

 

    At the other end of life in capitalist society there is also

    waste of potential labor power. Thus, especially in

    advanced capitalist economies, workers are forced

    into early retirement (or are discriminated against

    in the market for labor power based on their age).

    Yet, here there are differences in perspective among

     workers: many workers can't wait until retirement

    (when they think that they can *finally* experience

    pleasure -- in this context, I mean liberation from work)

    whereas other workers can't imagine life without earning

    a wage (and who knows how many thousands, perhaps

    millions?, have died shortly after retirement when they

    seemed to have lost the will and zest to live? Thus,

    sad to say,  for all too many workers the freedom from

    work ushers in the freedom from life).

 

    One might also argue that the *capitalist* division of

    labor promotes waste. E.g. occupations which are

    only useful to the realization or transfer of value

    rather than the creation of new value might be viewed

    as wasted potential labor power. Here we can find

    some connections between the subject of unproductive

    labor and waste.

 

    Then, of course, there is the army of the unemployed.

    From one perspective, this might be seen as wasted

    potential (indeed, this is implied by the marginalist

    "production possibilities curve" graph). Yet, from the

    standpoint of capital the IRA is not waste *alone* -- rather

    it serves an important function *for capital*: i.e. to

    help drive down wages, intensify labor, and increase

    the bargaining power of capitalists.  The working class,

    of course, views the matter differently.

 

    Paradoxically, while the working class struggles for

    greater leisure time it also struggles against an

    expansion of the IRA.  This is because when workers

    join the IRA they have a lot more "free time" for

    leisure, but not enough money to enjoy that leisure!

    Thus, the old story for the working class under capitalism

    is that they either have no time for leisure but earn a

    wage or they have nothing but time for leisure but don't

    have the money that they view as necessary to enjoy that

    time. Either way, they lose.

 

  b) waste of constant capital

 

      On the waste of circulating constant capital, I will

      write more in the next section. But, here, I will simply

      note that there are important ecological consequences.

 

      What about the "forcible destruction of capital values"

      that occur in a crisis? This could be viewed as *wasted

      value*, couldn't it?  Indeed, isn't the whole subject

      of "moral depreciation" related to the subject of waste?

      Yet, an exploration of wasted value (often caused

       by wasted use-value) must be linked to the subject

       of the transformation of value and use-value caused

       by technical change. Thus, on one level there *is*

       waste when there are advances in computer

       technology (as the use-values of the older technologies

       are rendered prematurely obsolete), yet in this case

       waste might be seen as promoting the accumulation

      of  capital.

 

       [While on the topic of accumulation of capital, we

       should note that this *is* the capitalist passion:

       "Accumulate! Accumulate ...."    Similarly,

       we might say that many capitalists view labor

       employed in pursuit of war and plunder as a

        *passion*.  (And, of course, the military views

        war as the ultimate passionate activity). The

        working class, however, has very different passions

        -- although some segments of the working class

        influenced by "education", the media, government

        propaganda, etc. can come to embrace the idea

        of war as passion. This, however, leads us to

        another subject -- the state (since an understanding

        of nationalism assumes an understanding of the state

        in capitalist society).

 

    c) transfer of value

 

        There is a transfer of value by capitalists to the

     state.  Does this represent, on some level, a

     waste of value?  I would say: not necessarily.

     It depends on what we mean here by the _expression_

     "waste". And it depends on *who* (i.e. what class)

     it is a waste (or a benefit) to?  Thus, war -- from the

     standpoint of the international working class --

     represents a waste of working class lives. Not so

     from the perspective of capital and capitalist nations.

included as well).

 

    The above might be explored, in part (but _only_ part)

     by a consideration of the acquisition of what become

     elements of constant circulating capital.

 

    Capitalists seek to accumulate capital. But, doesn't

     the working-class often seek to accumulate

     commodities that are used for individual consumption?

     Of course, working class *passions* for a lot of

     commodities are created often by "consumerism"

     promoted by various social institutions, especially

     *advertising* by capitalists. What is the effect of

      this working-class (and other class) demand for

     consumer goods on the environment?  How will their

     passions be changed?

 

III. The Way Forward

 

     I guess we could agree with the desire for passionate

     labor as a true _expression_ of human potential.

 

     Yet, how do we get from here to there?

    

     Michael's book is self-consciously in the tradition of the

     Utopian Socialists, especially Fourier. Indeed, he

     concludes near the end of his book that what is required

     is a transformation of society but that "whether it

     proceeds along the rather modest course I am

     suggesting here or the revolutionary path that Marx

     foresaw -- society has no choice but to begin the

     process as soon as possible" (p. 160).  Yet this

     begs the question --  can we eliminate waste and

     have "passionate labor"  with a "modest course"

     or is a revolutionary transformation required?

 

Does anyone else want to talk about waste and value

and passionate labor?

 

In solidarity, Jerry