On Jul 23, 2012, at 5:35 PM, Shane Mage wrote: > Relative surplus value has nothing to do with the case because the > services provided by IBM are *business* services not services sold to > consumers as consumable products. As such their costs are *overhead* > costs rather than payment for productive labor. Unproductive labor, > however necessary to the realization of surplus value, itself produces > no surplus value absolute or relative.
I'm familiar with the catechistic response, but could you explain to me what is gained by all this hairsplitting? I've recently seen people use this style of thought to argue that the neoliberal era brought no boom, and that the rise in profitability since the early 1980s is a sham once you perform the proper adjustments, even though this would be news to a very flush capitalist class. Aside from that, what do these distinctions do for you? Doug _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
