(un)productive labor

[Jim Devine <jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 01:40 PM 9/13/01 -0500, you wrote:


> Jim Devine wrote:
> > * I disagree with Adam Smith's view that services are unproductive.
>
> I would like to see more on this. In addition, some things that are
> called "service" look an awful lot like factories to me. Why should one
> call the production of food in a MacDonalds "service labor" while the
> production of food in a Kraft factory or a Pillsbury mill is "productive
> labor." Both equally change matter, so even at a vulgar level both seem
> equally productive.

I don't think Michael Perelman likes discussions of this this, so here's a
nutshell version:

(1) to both Smith & Marx, "productive" basically refers to producing
profits for capitalists.

(2) to Smith, services weren't productive, because they didn't produce
physical objects. But he was referring to the hiring of personal servants,
not people at McDonalds. I think his argument is severely flawed, as did Marx.

(3) to Marx, it's the physical nature of the product that's crucial to
determining the (un)productive nature of the labor. It's whether or not
they contribute to the aggregate surplus-value. So service workers could be
productive. However, there are some other jobs (such as stock brokers)
which aren't productive, because they involve merely redistributing
surplus-value.

Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxx &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine