[sent earlier by mistake, in incomplete form.]
raghu: >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.)<
Louis Proyect wrote: > Didn't you mean to say that security guards and
cashiers do not produce surplus value? <
Guards and dealers definitely produce use-values; otherwise no-one
would pay them. (The concept of "use-value" has nothing to do with how
dubious the pleasure is. In Marx's time, gin was a use-value, even
though it killed a lot of poor people.)
But, at least in Marxian political economy, they do not produce
surplus-value. (That's what Marx meant by "unproductive.") The guard
simply preserves property rights, while the cashier transfers them
between individuals. The worker who produces surplus-value -- who
might be a service-worker, contrary to Adam Smith -- actually creates
new property rights, which are held by the employers.
Individual capitalists do not care a whit, by the way, about the
production of surplus-value (a concept for the economy as a whole) and
thus do not care about whether or not labor is unproductive. Instead,
they care about the use-values they get for themselves (for their own
consumption purposes) and the profits they get from organizing the
production of use-values (or by robbing, cheating, etc.) Those profits
can be the result of redistribution from other capitalists.
LP said: > I myself find that distinction rather useless since they
are necessary to the realization of surplus value over the entire
productive sphere.<
Paul Phillips responded: > 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? <
The question is whether or not the wages and salaries of unproductive
workers is rising relative to those of productive workers. If the
latter's degree of productivity rises, it might be enough (in theory)
to allow both increasing overhead expenditures (the wages and salaries
of unproductive workers) _and_ rising wages. In the US, it seems, the
productivity of labor has increased pretty steadily in recent decades,
while real wages have been pretty flat. And a lot of companies have
thinned out overhead ("unproductive") labor.
More importantly, perhaps, cannot unproductive labor be "indirectly
productive" (as Jim O'Connor says)? A public school teacher may not do
"productive" labor (since she doesn't produce new property rights for
an employer) but she may raise the effectiveness of her student's
labor. This tells us once again that the concept of "unproductive
labor" makes the most sense if we think in terms of the entire
capitalist economy, the "social factory" (as Marx did in CAPITAL, vol.
I). In this context, the teacher is productive, indirectly adding to
the employers' property rights.
One fact is that the US economy (the place discussed in this thread)
is not the same as the entire capitalist economy. The use of
unproductive labor (say, in finance, in looting, etc.) might transfer
property rights from other countries to the capitalists in the US,
creating surplus-value from the point of view of US capitalists (which
is what counts to them). This might actually allow a higher US profit
rate.
Simon Ward says: >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.<
This presumes that no productive labor takes place in the core country
(here, the US). It also suggests that surplus (or the rate of
surplus-value) cannot be increased in the US. Both assumptions are
surely wrong. There is a lot of old-fashioned production work going on
here.
>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.<
Above it was implied that US workers are exploiting the low-wage areas
(being unproductive but "enjoying" income). But this ignores two
things, both implied by Simon's discussion. (1) unproductive workers
are paid for services rendered (the use-value they create); and (2)
the outflow of capital (along with threats of outflow) and, to a
lesser extent, in-migration drag down wages. These forces are
reinforced by a lot of actual history (union-busting, etc.)
These two forces help explain why the rise of real wages of
(non-supervisor) blue-collar and white-collar employees have been so
flat during the last 25 years or so (even though labor productivity
has risen significantly). I think it's much more important than the
pressure of the unproductive overhead workers on the productive
workers that Paul points to.
Though US capitalists can gain from exploitation abroad (and even
share the benefits with their pampered pets), there are also abundant
domestic sources of surplus-value.
There was a period when US workers may have gained from imperialism,
the so-called "golden age" of the 1950s and 1960s. But that period is
over, since now they are part of the "race (or creep) to the bottom,"
competing with labor in poorer countries for the affections of capital
and competing with those people driven out of poorer countries by the
primitive accumulation there (and the transformation of agriculture).
>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.<
This seems confused. It's not the productivity or non-productivity of
labor that attracts capital. The luxurious housing and golf courses
arise because profits have (until recently) been quite abundant,
especially for the richest of the rich, so that the elite could
_afford_ them.
In response to Simon Ward, Carrol Cox writes: >This is wrong; these
are luxury commodities and the production of them generates surplus
value just as does the production of boots or tennis balls or or
shirts. ...<
right. Luxury production can easily be productive.
Simon ripostes: >I can accept the wrongness but it has other
implications. Firstly, the productive component of labour must include
construction workers not just the traditional manufacturing class.
Secondly, other luxury goods are not required to be manufactured in
the home economy.<
If construction workers (who do one kind of productive labor) are in
the central economy, then they are producing luxury goods (McMansions,
etc.) in the "home economy." (BTW, I wish people would drop the
"traditional manufacturing class" from their thinking. Productive
labor is not the same as manufacturing labor or the working class.)
In response to Simon's first two comments, Carrol writes: > Whose
"traditional manufacturing class"? Productive workers ALWAYS (in
Marx's work) included service workers, salaried writers,
transportation workers, hotel cooks and porters, salaried tailors but
not independent tailors. Many Marxist economists don't use this
distinction, and there's no law anyone has to, but if you do talk
about Marx then you have to or you jabber nonsense.<
right.
>Thirdly, the capital component of such goods, especially in bricks
and mortar, becomes unproductive where the good is not used in a
productive capacity (is a private car productive - and if it is, is an
SUV more productive than a tw-seater). Capital is sunk into conditions
in which it cannot be reproduced through the creation of a surplus.<
It does not matter that labor produces luxury goods. Being
"productive" means producing extra property rights for the employing
class.
> Compare the latter notion to the export of capital into the extraction of raw
> materials. What implications does that have for the rate of profit in the
> geographic area holding that new capital.<
Raw material rents raise the rate of profit of those who own the
rights to those raw materials. So the capitalists in the rich
countries can benefit from the ownership of oil. Of course, so can the
Saudi Arabian elite, the Venezuelan people, etc. Our Noble and
Virtuous Leader, of course, wants to increase (his friends among) the
US capitalists' share of the oil pie. Too bad for him that his Iraq
adventure has been such a bust.
> Which means that in order to continue satisfying the demand for the
> 'enjoyment' of a surplus in the home economy, there is a continuing, and most
> likely increasing, need to exploit labour abroad. Slowly, capital is leeched
> into unproductive conditions in the home economy. <
this doesn't follow, given the stagnation of wages in the US.
> And back to Carrol's point - does a house or a golf course create surplus
> value? - are they productive uses of capital?<
houses and golf courses do not create surplus-value. Neither do
automobile factories. They are profitable to own, however. The sale
of houses, golf courses, and factories can produce surplus-value for
their seller, if the wage is low enough.
Michael Perelman writes: >The distinction between productive and
unproductive has many meanings -- Even Marx was not entirely
consistent. A golf course or a meth lab can be productive in the
sense of producing surplus value.<
He wasn't consistent because his work wasn't finished, but the "sense
of producing surplus value" is the sense he proposed.
>On a different level of abstraction, an economy devoted exclusively
to catering to the domestic rich, might be likely to fall behind,
although an economy like Dubai with some trendy cache [cachet?] might
prosper -- until some newer, more trendy spot pops up.<
Dubai doesn't have oil?
I conclude say that Marx's concept of unproductive creates a quandary.
On the one hand, as part of a value accounting framework for
capitalism as a whole, it makes total sense. On the other, alas, I'm
afraid it does not add very much to our understanding of the laws of
motion of capitalism, especially the most concrete aspects of those
dynamics.
--
Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own
way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
