Unproductive labour and exploitation
- This topic has 90 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Part of the productive (for capital)/unproductive critique is in enabling criticism of capitalism.
Maria Mazzucato in her ‘The Value of Everything’ take a look at national accounting (where the state is by definition unproductive, and things like housework don’t appear), she also has looked at the role of the state in R&D and how much real value it is worth. The problem is, from the POV of the owners of capital, that which does not make them a profit is unproductive, so the same type of labour, say a nurse in a state hospital and a nurse in a private hospital and unproductive and productive respectively.
I think Mattick is worth reading on this:
“To pay off its debts and the attendant interest, the government has to use tax money, or make new borrowings. In other words, the products which the government “purchases” are not really purchased, but given to the government free; for the government has nothing to give in return but its credit standing, which, in turn, has no other base than the government’s taxing-power and ability to increase the supply of credit-money. However the credit expansion is brought about, and however it is dealt with in the course of an expanding government-induced production, one thing is clear – that the national debt, and the interest on it, can be honored only as a reduction of current and future income generated in the private sector of the economy. ” [My emphasis]
https://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1969/marx-keynes/index.htm
Other reasons why it is relevant can be seen here:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/ch06.htm
For the capitalists, the costs of administration are things they would like to shrug off because they are a sunken cost, likewise transportation. We can look at the tenacity by which leftists want to nationalise railways, which are an unproductive sector, and leave productive sectors alone. Indeed, in the context of HS2 it is doubtful the railways (except for land swindles) have ever been directly productive for capital.
YMS wrote: “…from the POV of the owners of capital, that which does not make them a profit is unproductive…”.
But that requires them to define their terms.
Who determines what counts as ‘makes a profit’? An individual capitalist? The capitalist class as a whole? A sector of capital? A nation? These would all have differing views, depending upon their varying interests.
And why would any socialist accept a bourgeois definition?
You’re still not giving any clear political reason why workers should accept that any of the members of their class should be deemed ‘unproductive’. It’s certainly not any ‘objective’, ‘real world’, ‘true’ concept, which reflects a ‘thing’.
For me, marcos earlier hit the nail on the head, with his mention about US policies, which were clearly intended to strengthen capitalism, even though there was an outcry from some US capitalists about ‘unproductive state spending’.
It’s clear to me that what’s ‘unproductive’ for one, is ‘productive’ for another.
It’s a bit like the ‘terrorist/freedom fighter’ label.
I can’t take seriously any political argument provided to workers, that doesn’t (or can’t) define its terms. The again, perhaps the politics aren’t aimed at workers, but those academics already ‘in the know’. Good for them, eh?
Who determines what counts as ‘makes a profit’? An individual capitalist? The capitalist class as a whole? A sector of capital? A nation? These would all have differing views, depending upon their varying interests.
Exactly.
And why would any socialist accept a bourgeois definition?
To criticise it.
Some try to adopt it, on the basis that they see the law of value continuing into socialist society, but it is best IMNSHO used as part of a criticism of how capitalism is not run in our interests. tehre may be some element that can be used in decadence theory.
And why would any socialist accept a bourgeois definition?
To criticise it.
Some try to adopt it, on the basis that they see the law of value continuing into socialist society, but it is best IMNSHO used as part of a criticism of how capitalism is not run in our interests. tehre may be some element that can be used in decadence theory.
Absolutely so. As an active trade unionist I found the party’s critiques of capitalist economics at the time re inflation indispensable, as workers were being assailed on all sides, with their wage demands being called ‘inflationary’ even though in their guts we knew those claims to be nuts, the theoretical underpinning stiffened our resolve.
I have been around factories workers, workers unions, office workers, retiree, peasants and professional workers and all of them consider that they are exploited by the capitalist class, for me, this is only an intellectual discussion, the reality is at the factories, workers unions, agricultural field, and all places where the workers are sweating. Marx made a critique of the capitalist mode of production and he took many concepts from bourgeois economists and we do not have to accept everything that he said, and time have changed
I have been around factories workers, workers unions, office workers, retiree, peasants and professional workers and all of them consider that they are exploited by the capitalist class, for me, this is only an intellectual discussion.
But this is precisely why I raised the whole issue of unproductive labour and exploitation. I fully agree with you! Workers as a class – whether they be productive in the sense of producing commodities/surplus – or unproductive, are ALL exploited. Exploitation does not depends on you being in the productive sector of the capitalist economy
The point is that there are some people who say that unproductive workers are NOT exploited because they dont produce surplus value. Cope himself seems to think that becuase the unproductive sector in the developed capitalist economies is so large that this helps to explain why workers in this part of the world , in his opinion, are NOT exploited. He believes that the working class as a whole in the West is fully “labour aristocratic”, is not exploited as a class and has a vested material interest in supporting “imperialism” and the super -exploitation of workers in the global south.
I think Cope’s basic argument is absolute nonsense but it is view that is widely held among workers. All the more reason to deal with this argument about unproductive kabour and productive labour. It is not some arcane “intellectual discussion”. It has real world consequences and it is being used by the so called “anti -imperialist” brigade to promote ideas that are deeply divisive as far as the global working class is concerned
robbo203 wrote: “The need to make profit via productive labour imposes limits on the extent of the unproductive sector – including state spending on the very reforms that the workers want the politicians to implement“.
Why mention ‘unproductive’? It’s more simple to say ‘The need to make a profit’ when combined with the contraction phase of capitalism ‘imposes limits on reforms’?No. The whole point of the unproductive sector is that it doesn’t produce surplus value but is financed out of surplus value produced by the productive sector. The larger the unproductive sector, the greater the share of surplus value that is diverted away from capitalisation or capital accumulation. You are thus in effect killing (or at any rate slowly strangling) the goose that lays capitalism’s golden eggs by spending too much on the unproductive sector . At some point this will make start to make a particular national economy less competitive . A negative feedback loop will then kick in. What will happen is “capital flight” in response to rising taxes to fund the unproductive sector. The capitalists will relocate their investment elsewhere . Your national economy will start going down the pan and so your capitalist state will feel obliged to start sharply pruning back on unproductive spending in a bid to attract back capital and restore a better balance between the size of the unproductive sector (which, though it is unproductive, is also useful up to a point from capitalism’s point of view) and the productive sector which has to take priority in capitalist terms
After all, Keynesian reformism does work… but only in the expansion phase of capitalism. The reforms must come to an end.
Does Keynesian reformism “work” or does it only appear to do so in the sense of being responsive to the contingent needs of capitalism at the time – notably, in the early post war era when capitalism was an in an expansive phase after the destruction of so much capital during the Second World War. If Keynesian reformism worked why did it end in such dismal failure? The whole point of the exercise was to moderate and even eliminate the capitalist trade cycle which it singularly failed to do.
robbo203 wrote: “If Keynesian reformism worked why did it end in such dismal failure? The whole point of the exercise was to moderate and even eliminate the capitalist trade cycle which it singularly failed to do.”
Yes, I pointed this out to you – that the attempt to ‘eliminate the capitalist trade cycle’ always ‘ends in dismal failure’.
robbo203 quoted LBird: “After all, Keynesian reformism does work… but only in the expansion phase of capitalism. The reforms must come to an end.”
The point is – it’s to do with the workings of capitalism, ie. expansion and contraction.
This would happen whether or not some concept termed ‘unproductive labour’ was present or not.
This is my ‘whole point’ – why should workers be told some of them are necessarily ‘unproductive’?
What is the political purpose of employing the term ‘unproductive labour’?
It’s almost as if an elite seems to think it knows better than workers themselves, what terms and concepts to employ, when analysing and describing the workers’ own reality to them.
I’m afraid I’d vote to remove ‘unproductive labour’. Then, if it was carried by democratic methods, any workers’ delegates would have to analyse without that concept. I’m sure that the academics who have invested so much wasted time and effort in this concept will be pissed off to be told they can’t use it anymore, but… democratic revolutions, eh?
What is the political purpose of employing the term ‘unproductive labour’?
Again, LBird, you keep on making this assumption that unproductive labour is a some kind of derogatory reference to workers classified as such. Its not. Unproductive labour in this context has a very specific, very narrow, meaning referring to labour that does not produce surplus value . It does NOT mean these same workers are not “productive” in the more ordinary sense of the term as meaning doing “useful work”
So long as you clarify what you mean by unproductive labour I really cannot see that there is any cause for concern whatsoever. You can use another term if you so chose but that does not diminish the importance of the concept itself and its relevance to understanding the workings of capitalism and the limitations of reformism imposed by the competitive need to accumulate capital out of surplus value.
It stands to reason that the more surplus value you divert towards the financing of the unproductive sector, the less surplus value you have available for capitalisation. Surely you can see the significance of this?
.
It’s probably best that we bring this particular exchange to a friendly halt, robbo. 🙂
I’ve read your (and others’) arguments, and I fully understand that youse don’t regard ‘unproductive labour’ as ‘derogatory’, and that youse regard it as ‘productive’ in the ‘ordinary sense’. You’ve said this several times, but ignored the actual questions that I’ve asked.
I’m asking why you employ such a confusing term. By your own argument, it’s likely to confuse any worker using ‘ordinary sense’.
I suspect that your answer would be either: a) an argument from authority: ‘Marx used it, so, so do we’; or, b) that ‘unproductive labour’ really exists as an ‘objective reality’, and that your concept merely reflects that ‘reality’.
My reply would be either: a) If he did, Marx was mistaken; or b) how do you have access to this ‘reality’, if ‘ordinary sense’ doesn’t/can’t?
As I’ve tried to make clear, I’m asking a political question – why baffle workers? What’s the political point of the category ‘unproductive labour’?
Put simply, robbo – Cope mightn’t give a shit about being understood by the masses, perhaps he isn’t a socialist, or is a career academic, but surely the SPGB has an interest in explaining the world we live in, in familiar terms.
Who benefits from ‘unproductive labour’? And I mean the concept.
Please don’t reply, just to reiterate what’s already been said on the thread. I know that. Thanks anyway, I’ll just remain baffled.
‘I’ll just remain baffled.’
Yep, that about sums up your inability to understand politics L Bird. No doubt you will regard that as another insult but the evidence is clear. ALB and robbo have made a clear and coherent explanation but you cannot, or will not, concur. I can only speculate why you are like this time and again. Perhaps you’re just argumentative by nature? Again I can only admire comrades who take the time to try and communicate with you. Is it ever possible that you can be mistaken? Look to yourself and either help us in the struggle or stop wasting our time.
Wez wrote: “ALB and robbo have made a clear and coherent explanation…“.
If you can point that out, Wez, I’d be glad to read it.
Wez wrote: “Is it ever possible that you can be mistaken?“.
Of course it is! I was a member of the SWP, and used to believe all their Leninist crap about ‘materialism’! 😛
We seem to have come to the usual end to a critical discussion with the SPGB. A resort to personal insults, which go unpunished by the moderators, and a refusal to engage with questions.
But.. if I answer Wez with the same insulting tone, I’m banned.
Perhaps there is still a member (or even just a sympathiser) who reads these threads, and can explain why no-one in the SPGB can answer questions like “what is the political purpose of calling some workers ‘unproductive’?“, and why this failure is always accompanied by personal insults, like Wez’s post?
LBird, the political purpose of saying that some workers do not produce surplus value but are financed out of surplus value is to show that there are structural limits to what reformism can achieve. The need for profit has to take precedence over the need for reform when these two things come into sharp conflict as they will if the unproductive sector gets too bloated and the capitalists are burdened with mounting levels of taxation to pay for it. All they will do is move their capital elsewhere
Just to go off on a tangent
“the political purpose of saying that some workers do not produce surplus value but are financed out of surplus value is to show that there are structural limits to what reformism can achieve.”
Our case which very much goes against the intuition of our fellow workers that they do not bear the burden of taxation but that it also come out of the employers share of surplus value extracted via the Labour Theory of Value and determination of wages also leads to the conclusion that there is a limit to reforms that the State can pass and pay for since the capitalist class as a whole will not sacrifice too much of their profit to pay the State’s social budget.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.