Elections were distraction from normalcy. Now that my Nader campaign is
over. I can return to my routine. Reading my e-mail I saw many comments and
suggestions to my question and request about dental hygienist. First, I
must thank to those who commented on my question and informed that she is
neither blue-collar nor white-collar, but pink collar worker.
Let me return to the other important question: is my hygienist
"unproductive" laborer? I believe she is, and here are my reasons.
First, I will try to provide a workable definition for
productive/unproductive labor and then comment briefly on comments.
We all agree that any transaction that requires human labor does not
necessarily add to the social surplus value. Those labor that add to the
total output from social point of view is called "productive labor," and
those that do not add to the total output is called "unproductive labor."
In general, labor that produces surplus value over and above its cost (i.e.
labor power) is productive labor, because it contributes to the
accumulation of capital. On the other hand, a labor that does not produce
surplus value and does not contribute to capital accumulation is
unproductive labor. One that adds to social wealth and the other just
distributes/consumes it. Unproductive labor could produce a surplus value
to a particular business (or capitalist), but it is unproductive from
social point of view because it does not increase social wealth. Examples,
an attorney employed by a law firm, a guard, a detective, an advertising
person employed by the respected firms are all unproductive even though
they provide surplus value to their employers. Their activities involve in
distribution rather than creation of social wealth. Hence, unproductive
labor distributes/consumes value rather than adds to it.
Labor being important or vital or crucial does not necessarily make it
productive. For example, social welfare expenditures for health, education,
roads, parks, etc. are all vital, but those who work in these activities do
not produce social surplus value. A scientist doing important basic
research or state bureaucracy which maintains and preserves capitalist
society, imperial army helps to reproduce capitalist society, or the
president. These are all vital to the capitalist system, yet their labor is
unproductive. These activities are very useful to capitalist society, but
they do not produce social surplus value. They consume it. This does not
mean that only productive workers are subject to exploitation. Unproductive
workers are also exploited in same way as the productive workers.
Capitalism is a society based on exploitation of one class over the other.
It is a class society and workers are exploited without being
differentiated as productive or unproductive.
Now let us view my dental hygienist. She cleans teeth. What does social
surplus value she produce? Even though she is exploited by her employer,
she involves in distribution of the social surplus value. The service she
provides is not a commodity that is sold for profit on the market. Just
like a scientist doing a basic research, or a teacher teaching students in
science and engineering.
For further discussion of the subject see:
K. Marx, Capital, I: 642 (Vintage ed.)
B. Fine and L. Harris. Rereading Capital: Ch. 3.
D. Foley, Understanding Capital, 118-22.
______ , A Dictionary of Marxist Thought: 397-98.
F. Moseley. Falling Rate of Profit in the Postwar United States: 34-38.
A. Shaikh and A. Tonak. Measuring the Wealth of Nations. 29-31.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS:
Answer to Jerry Levy:
>Fikret Ceyhun wrote:
>
>> The other day I was at my dentist's office for checkup and
>> cleaning. As the dental assistant was scraping my teeth I was thinking: is
>> she blue collar or white collar worker? I know she is "unproductive"
>> worker. Can someone care to comment?
>
>(1) The color of a person's collar (blue, white, pink) does not determine
>whether one's labour is productive or unproductive [of surplus value].
>
>(2) Why do you "know" she is an unproductive worker? She's not working
>for the state and being paid out of state revenues (unless there are
>state-run dental services in North Dakota). She's not part of management,
>is she? Her labour isn't for the purposes of realizing surplus value (e.g.
>advertising), is it?
>
>Jerry
My above examples of law firm, or scientist, or a detective
assistant shed light on this question. For instance, Foley says that
scientists and engineers working in basic research, creating fundamental
knowledge which increases future standard of living are not productive
workers, because they do not produce a commodity directly sold on the
market. The resources (laboratory assistants, equipment and space) they use
in the form of their own wages, are formally paid out of surplus value in
modern corporations. Thus, their labor is unproductive. Let us be sure,
capitalist society is not rationally organized society and therefore human
activities are not classified whether they meet human needs, but whether
they produce surplus value or not.
Answer to Michael Perelman:
>
>What about a productive worker who supplies an unproductive activity?
>Say, a paper worker whose product goes to Wall Street?
>--
>Michael Perelman
Fine and Harris make the point very clear: They say that if labor
directly produces social surplus value it is productive; if not, it is
unproductive. Corollary, labor that is under the control of capital in the
sphere of production is productive. A paper worker who produces paper which
is sold on the market for profit is productive worker whether the paper
bought by Wall Street or book publishing company which prints your book.
Maggie Coleman:
>I think clean teeth are a product.
>
>maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cleaning teeth is not a physical product but a service.
Blair Sandler:
>
>I don't understand why you think someone providing health care is an
>unproductive worker (assuming she's working for a capitalist enterprise,
>that is, the business is incorporated -- which is likely): she's an
>employee and wage laborer and the health care she provides is part of a
>service sold as a commodity by the dental corporation.
>
>Blair
It does not matter whether labor employed by capitalist enterprise
or not. For example, an advertising worker employed by a capitalist
advertising agency is not creating a social wealth but distributing what
already is created. In capitalism all workers work for wage and all are
exploited whether they are productive or unproductive. If the above
advertising worker does not produce value over and above the wage, that
worker would not be employed.
Blair, for the moment, assume that there are two agents, one is
private and the other state and both sells hearing aids. For the sake of
simplicity, make the Veterans Administration (VA) as the state agency.
Hearing aids are produced by private corporations. Those who are employed
to produce hearing aids are productive workers because they created social
surplus value which would augment capital and social wealth. Hearing aids
dispensers, VA and a private company, employ workers who dispense hearing
aids. These workers redistribute social surplus value, they are not
creating it. Hence they are unproductive whether they are employed publicly
or privately.
This explanation is also true for Dilek.
>
>I will add one more argument to what Blair says.
>Is not health service inevitable for the reproduction of worker (and also
>capitalist!) or for keeping worker in shape to be productive at work place?.
>That is why, I think it should be considered as productive. I would like to
>do the same statement for education.
>
>Especially, after the penetration of information technology and complicated
>health equipment and so on, health services have become more and more
>capital intensive and it seems they have many similar features of production
>(the hospitals in the US are incredible, they give me an impression of a
>huge company). So why we should keep them seperate?
>
>Dilek Cetindamar Karaomerlioglu
Jeffrey Fellows:
>Even if you believe a more superficial account of "productive" labor,
>which is restricted to creative activities that physically transform some raw
>material, or subject, into a physical commodity existing in time and
>space separately from its producer, did not the activities of the
>hygenist physically transform your (assumed decaying) teeth? As an
>equivocation, the essence of your teeth may not have been transformed
>from their original normal condition of relative health. However, the
>process of decay the hygenist arrested certainly was. The person, like
>other medical practitioners, reestablish a normal condition of
>health (individually and socially defined), and in the production process
>physically, as well as emotionally, transform their patients (variable
>capital). The problem is not so much related to the transformed object
>being distinct from the worker, clearly patients are, it is just that
>the consumers of care are in the unique position of being a necessary
>part of the labor process.
>
>Jeff
What about a dentist who puts a crown? Is s/he productive worker?
The answer is NO. For instance, assume that I got ill, say a back ache. I
went to a chiropractor or physical therapist who restored my health. I lost
my health and now I got it back. Or just like I lost my wallet and somebody
found and returned it to me. Nothing lost or added, nothing changed. Is
physical therapist or the person who found my wallet productive worker? NO.
======================= END =======================
*+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++*
+Fikret Ceyhun voice: (701)777-3348 work +
+Dept. of Economics (701)772-5135 home +
+Univ. of North Dakota fax: (701)777-5099 +
+University Station, Box 8369 +
+Grand Forks, ND 58202/USA e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +
*+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++*
