"Productive labour is here defined from the standpoint of capitalist production, and Adam Smith here got to the very heart of the matter, hit the nail on the head. This is one of his greatest scientific merits (as Malthus rightly observed, this critical differentiation between productive and unproductive labour remains the basis of all bourgeois political economy) that he defines productive labour as labour which is directly exchanged with capital; that is, he defines it by the exchange through which the conditions of production of labour, and value in general, whether money or commodity, are first transformed into capital (and labour into wage-labour in its scientific meaning).
This also establishes absolutely what unproductive labour is. It is labour which is not exchanged with capital, but directly with revenue, that is, with wages or profit (including of course the various categories of those who share as co-partners in the capitalist’s profit, such as interest and rent). Where all labour in part still pays itself (like for example the agricultural labour of the serfs) and in part is directly exchanged for revenue (like the manufacturing labour in the cities of Asia), no capital and no wage-labour exists in the sense of bourgeois political economy. These definitions are therefore not derived from the material characteristics of labour (neither from the nature of its product nor from the particular character of the labour as concrete labour), but from the definite social form, the social relations of production, within which the labour is realised. An actor, for example, or even a clown, according to this definition, is a productive labourer if he works in the service of a capitalist (an entrepreneur) to whom he returns more labour than he receives from him in the form of wages; while a jobbing tailor who comes to the capitalist’s house and patches his trousers for him, producing a mere use-value for him, is an unproductive labourer. The former’s labour is exchanged with capital, the latter’s with revenue. The former’s labour produces a surplus-value; in the latter’s, revenue is consumed."
What would Hank say?
What is productive labour and what is not, a point very much disputed back and forth since Adam Smith made this distinction, (Ed.: see Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Vol. II, pp. 355-85.) has to emerge from the dissection of the various aspects of capital itself. Productive labour is only that which produces capital. Is it not crazy, asks e.g. (or at least something similar) Mr Senior, that the piano maker is a productive worker, but not the piano player, although obviously the piano would be absurd without the piano player? (Ed: See Senior, Principes fondamentaux, pp. 197-206.) But this is exactly the case. The piano maker reproduces capital; the pianist only exchanges his labour for revenue. But doesn't the pianist produce music and satisfy our musical ear, does he not even to a certain extent produce the latter? He does indeed: his labour produces something; but that does not make it productive labour in the economic sense; no more than the labour of the madman who produces delusions is productive. Labour becomes productive only by producing its own opposite. Other economists therefore allow the so-called unproductive worker to be productive indirectly. For example, the pianist stimulates production; partly by giving a more decisive, lively tone to our individuality, and also in the ordinary sense of awakening a new need for the satisfaction of which additional energy becomes expended in direct material production. This already admits that only such labour is productive as produces capital; hence that labour which does not do this, regardless of how useful it may be—it may just as well be harmful—is not productive for capitalization, is hence unproductive labour. Other economists say that the difference between productive and unproductive applies not to production but to consumption. Quite the contrary. The producer of tobacco is productive, although the consumption of tobacco is unproductive. Production for unproductive consumption is quite as productive as that for productive consumption; always assuming that it produces or reproduces capital. 'Productive labourer he that directly augments his master's wealth,' Malthus therefore says, quite correctly (IX,40) (Ed: see Malthus, Principles of Political Economy, p. 47, footnote by the editor, William Otter, Bp of Chichester.); correct at least in one aspect. The expression is too abstract, since in this formulation it holds also for the slave. The master's wealth, in relation to the worker, is the form of wealth itself in its relation to labour, namely capital. Productive labourer he that directly augments capital.
babyfinland posted:haha does this contradict what lessons posted? from grundrisse:
absolutely not. notice that the ToSV passage confines its definition of productivity to that "from standpoint of capitalist production". what Marx is pointing out here is how arbitrary this standpoint is from a rational perspective, not denying that it is in fact the standpoint capitalist production takes.
i was talking about this with khamsek afterwards and came up with an example that's even more striking. imagine a masseuse hired by the NFL to massage players. if this worker is hired as an independent contractor and payed by the NFL, his or her services are unproductive, (see ToSV's analysis of doctors hired to treat factory workers). however, if the masseuse is an employee of a corporation contracted by the NFL, his or her services are productive as they produce surplus value for the employer. essentially, the exact same work by the exact same laborer can be productive or unproductive depending on who pays their wage, even if that wage is identical. that said, it's an entirely necessary distinction to make for any value-based theory of political economy, because otherwise it all descends into mush and the worker's labor is overshadowed by the millions or billions of individual workers who directly and indirectly contribute to the labor process.
Lessons posted:babyfinland posted:haha does this contradict what lessons posted? from grundrisse:
absolutely not. notice that the ToSV passage confines its definition of productivity to that "from standpoint of capitalist production". what Marx is pointing out here is how arbitrary this standpoint is from a rational perspective, not denying that it is in fact the standpoint capitalist production takes.
i was talking about this with khamsek afterwards and came up with an example that's even more striking. imagine a masseuse hired by the NFL to massage players. if this worker is hired as an independent contractor and payed by the NFL, his or her services are unproductive, (see ToSV's analysis of doctors hired to treat factory workers). however, if the masseuse is an employee of a corporation contracted by the NFL, his or her services are productive as they produce surplus value for the employer. essentially, the exact same work by the exact same laborer can be productive or unproductive depending on who pays their wage, even if that wage is identical. that said, it's an entirely necessary distinction to make for any value-based theory of political economy, because otherwise it all descends into mush and the worker's labor is overshadowed by the millions or billions of individual workers who directly and indirectly contribute to the labor process.
that makes sense
this poor boy is being exploited by the capitalism
Lessons posted:hey man do you have any papers on muslim aristotelianist philosophy on hand? i've got an paper on aristotle's contemporary relevance due tomorrow and i'm doing a section on cross-cultural relevance, (i already pointed out some similarities between his ethics and that of classical china), but i don't have anything both handy and easily-quotable for the medieval muslim world. i have ebscohost access and some other stuff btw
cambridge's companion to islamic theology edited by tim winter is really the best resource, if you have library access. i can email you a pdf of it too if need be
Transient_Grace posted:NFL is a brutal and stupid sport, soccer players get paid insane wages, even mediocre ones at a relatively small leagues such as Cyprus or Belgium may make hundreds of thousands of euros every year and they also tend to last much longer barring career ending injuries (which are less of a common occurance in soccer). If players need to wear body armor to play a sport maybe they shouldn't play it just a thought.
You are very gay
Lessons posted:hey man do you have any papers on muslim aristotelianist philosophy on hand?
nice catchphrase
babyfinland posted:Lessons posted:hey man do you have any papers on muslim aristotelianist philosophy on hand? i've got an paper on aristotle's contemporary relevance due tomorrow and i'm doing a section on cross-cultural relevance, (i already pointed out some similarities between his ethics and that of classical china), but i don't have anything both handy and easily-quotable for the medieval muslim world. i have ebscohost access and some other stuff btw
cambridge's companion to islamic theology edited by tim winter is really the best resource, if you have library access. i can email you a pdf of it too if need be
hmm, i can't seem to find it in the catalog. i'd appreciate it if you pm the pdf to me.
Edited by Lessons ()
Cycloneboy posted:was aristotle right about anything important ever?
Yes
Lessons posted:They have all made … not one suggestive hint or one little dietetic prescription with respect to how a person is to act in carryout out this enormous task [of doubting everything]. What those ancient Greeks, who after all did know a little about philosophy, assumed to be a task for a whole lifetime, because proficiency in doubting is not acquired in days or weeks, what the old veteran disputant attained, he who had maintained the equilibrium of doubt throughout all the specious arguments, who had intrepidly denied the certainty of the senses and the certainty of thought, who, uncompromisingly, had defied the anxiety of self-love and the insinuations of fellow feeling – with that everyone begins in our age.
oh right haha
that parts cool
Alyosha posted:Cycloneboy posted:was aristotle right about anything important ever?
Yes
such as?
Groulxsmith posted:Transient_Grace posted:
NFL is a brutal and stupid sport, soccer players get paid insane wages, even mediocre ones at a relatively small leagues such as Cyprus or Belgium may make hundreds of thousands of euros every year and they also tend to last much longer barring career ending injuries (which are less of a common occurance in soccer). If players need to wear body armor to play a sport maybe they shouldn't play it just a thought.
You are very gay
well at least i'm the good kind of jew, the one that looks like a romcom depiction of jesus. not the kind who is a banker and wears a pocket protector.
bitch.
I like sports that stop every five seconds, I like a sport that has 11 minutes of action out of 40 minutes of gameplay.