Surely the exploitation has been exported along with productive capital to
those geographic areas in which the surplus can be increased. The workers
left behind are 'enjoying' a share of that increased surplus value whilst
being unproductive of it themselves. Whatever productive capital is left
necessitates the supply of cheap labour (otherwise the capital would be
exported), which must bring with it a deepening chasm between the classes
and a need, it could be argued, for a steady rate of immigration. Without
this cheap labour in the home market - without an element of exploitation
equal to what can be found abroad - productive capital is drained away and
whatever capital is left is slowly but steadily transferred to unproductive
conditions - ever more luxurious housing for example or golf courses.
Maybe ...
Simon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Phillips" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2008 11:32 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] A New Economy?
But Louis, isn't that the point. Unproductive labour must be paid out of
surplus value. As the ratio of unproductive to productive labour
increases, the rate of exploitation of productive labour must increase,
no?
Paul Phillips
Louis Proyect wrote:
What is the Marxist take on this new economy? Do most of the service
sector jobs fall in the category of unproductive labor? After all
security guards and cashiers do not create any use value. (Blackjack
dealers arguably do create use value though of a dubious kind.)
-raghu.
Didn't you mean to say that security guards and cashiers do not
produce surplus value? I myself find that distinction rather useless
since they are necessary to the realization of surplus value over the
entire productive sphere.
--
Paul Phillips Professor Emertus, Economics University of Manitoba Home
and Office: 3806 - 36A st., Vernon BC, Canada. ViT 6E9 tel: 1 (250)
558-0830 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
