Louis Proyect wrote: > http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/the-economist-behind-the-khmer-rouge/
Interesting: >While the distinction between productive and unproductive labor in Khieu >Samphan’s dissertation was not original — it came from Adam Smith and was the >subject of a famous critique by Karl Marx — the dry language of that part of >the dissertation is somewhat chilling to read in retrospect, knowing that so >many Cambodians were subsequently worked to death in the fields.< Strangely for the New York TIMES, the link for "a famous critique by Karl Marx" is to http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1863/theories-surplus-value/ch04.htm. If someone is unhinged, a Smithian theory of (un)productive labor might be given a Khmer Rouge interpretation: the unproductive workers ("bureaucrats, merchants and bankers") could be put to work in the fields with little cost. But Marx's theory of (un)productive labor cannot be used that way. Someone's labor is "unproductive" only if it doesn't produce surplus-value for the capitalists. Thus, its status of being unproductive is only relevant from a capitalist class perspective (or from that of someone, like Marx, interested in understanding capitalism's laws of motion) and would not be relevant to a socialist society (or any other non-capitalist society). Put another way, the definition of unproductive labor would be different with socialism. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
