I am very well aware of the all the texts in the bureaucratic-Marxist
controversy about productive/unproductive labour, because I studied it
exhaustively as a Phd student in the 1980s, when I was analyzing
macroeconomic and labour force data. 

 

But I drew very different conclusions about it, than the New Marxist
Exploiting Class does with its tyranny of concepts. 

 

The issue is not primarily whether 53% of the workers are productive and 47%
are unproductive, tilting the total variable capital and total surplus value
this way or that way. The issue is to understand the development of the
social and technical division of labour, in which employers aim to maximize
productive labour creating the added value that can be turned into profit,
and minimize the unproductive labour that remains a necessary cost. This is
really the core of the "productivity" stakes.

 

This process of maximizing productive labour and minimizing unproductive
labour is a process riddled with contradictory imperatives, which occurs
within a process of competition pitting capitalists against capitalists,
capitalists against workers, and workers against other workers. It is not a
smooth economic process or a technical process, but a political process and
a cultural process as much as anything. In addition, the state mediates that
competition, and therefore becomes a competitor in its own right as well. To
a very considerable extent, the process is also determined by technological
developments. 

 

If, beyond a few general principles, Karl Marx was unable to define the
capitalist distinction between productive and unproductive labour very
exactly, there was a very good scientific reason for that, namely, the
division of labour is not a static Marxist-bureaucratic schematism or
classification, but a continuously evolving and changing framework of labour
organization in which hardly any occupation remains the same in the long
term. You can say that the division of labour has the tendency to develop in
certain ways, but the actual development is contingent on many different
conditions.

 

J.

 

 

_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

Reply via email to