Re: Estimating the surplus\Doug's question\Fred's comments

["Devine, James" <jdevine@xxxxxxx>]

Mike asks:
> ...do you mean by
> uproductive labour, that labour which does not produce
> a profit for an employer of wage-labour?

according to Marx's definition, unproductive labor (U) does not produce surplus-value, though it may help the capitalists _realize_ surplus-value. 

To my mind, that says that U doesn't help capital as a whole, but it can be profitable for an individual capitalist to hire. So a stock-broker can be profitable to hire, even though (s)he's not productive. 
 
> Are you saying that a single barber who owns his shop
> and employs nobody and who cuts hair for a price is an
> example of unproductive labour whereas a bunch of
> hairdressers employed by a chain for wages and whose
> accumulated services are sold at a profit are
> productive?

Marx used a similar example. A teacher hired by a business is productive, whereas a self-employed tutor is not. Note that there's nothing morally good about being productive.  

> ... In other words, can services as well as material goods
> be counted as part of productive labour in this
> definition?

for Smith, service laborers were unproductive. For Marx, they were productive in most cases.

> And what does the productivity of capital mean?
> Can capital, of and by itself be productive?

the "productivity of capital" is sloppy writing. It refers to the ratio of output to fixed capital equipment (the inverse of some measures of the organic composition of capital). But, at least in Marxian lingo, fixed capital isn't productive. However, it can be "indirectly productive," i.e., raising the productivity of productive labor. 
 
> Or, are we talking Capital as a social relation here
> i.e. wage-labour implied?

capital as a social relation is usually productive -- for capital. 

the more I think about this stuff, the less productive it seems. 

Jim