Re: China's new Marxist left

[eatonak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

> eatonak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>>Because the amount of labor-time of capitalists, which can fit to this
>>identification of productive labor, is so small (almost non-existing in
>>contemporary capitalisms) there is no reason to theorize this phenomenon.
>
> Who are the capitalists you're thinking of? Entrepreneurs who run
> companies? Large shareholders? Portfolio managers? CEOs?
> Boardmembers? Senior managers? Middle managers?
>
> Doug
>
>
Hi Doug,

If they are not involved in production activities, obviously none of their
labor should be considered as productive. So, in this regard the issue is
an empirical one, i.e. one should observe, for example, how a given
entrepreneur who runs his own company spends his work-day.  When one is
only interested in aggregate measurement of PUPL, then the BLS
classifications are usually a good starting point as you know.

On the other hand, one has to have a notion of what constitutes production
activities before starting to apply any criteria for PUPL to any
capitalist setting.  I still think that my C&C piece (w/ Savran; partially
based on Anwar's work) does a good job in clarifying what production,
circulation, etc. mean.

Here is the link to that piece:

http://www.simons-rock.edu/%7Eeatonak/pupl.htm

Ahmet