I wasn't arguing with your point. I was using it as a take-off point to raise a (possibly) connected way of looking at the whole complex of topics. Perhaps I should have changed the subject line.
Carrol paul phillips wrote: > > Carrol Cox wrote: > > >The distinction between productive/unproductive (and perhaps reproductive) labor > >then > >can't either be accepted or rejected on the basis of economic > >statistics. ????? > > > > > > > > > > > This was not the point I was trying to make -- indeed the opposite. > What I was saying is that the theoretical/philosophical distinction > between productive and unproductive labour is a useful tool in > understanding recent economic trends. The fact that the empirical data > seems to support Marx's distinction is, however, welcome. > > Paul Phillips
