Unproductive labour and exploitation
- This topic has 90 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Rod, the point of distinguishing between labour that producing surplus value and labour that doesn’t isn’t, and never was, to draw an invidious distinction between different members of the working class. Not at all. It is to understand the workings of capitalism.
As capitalism is a system of capital (as value) accumulation out of surplus value its priority is employing productive-of-surplus-value labour. This is another way of saying that capitalism is a system in which profits come first. As the ABC of Marxism and Robbo have pointed out, it sets limits to the amount of labour the state can organise to provide “public services” (education, health, libraries, museums, meals on wheels, rubbish collection, etc) as this has to come out of surplus value and in fact is at the expense of producing it, and is why when profits fall or threaten to fall then state spending on services that people benefit from are cut back.
I agree that to be a socialist you only need to understand that capitalism cannot work, and cannot be made to work, in the interests of “the many” without necessarily understanding exactly why; it’s a conclusion that can be drawn on the basis of experience. However, the party should be in a position to explain why, and the distinction between labour that produces surplus value compared with that which doesn’t is crucial to this,
rodshaw wrote: “So in what sense is it important?“.
I agree with your question, rod, and also add “And who is it important for?”.
If, as you suggest, “theoretically a majority could establish socialism without having the first idea about any difference” [my bold], who needs to draw this distinction, and why?
Why does a minority need to draw a distinction between supposedly ‘unproductive’ and ‘productive’? Who are this minority writing for? What’s the political point of this distinction?
ALB wrote: “productive-of-surplus-value labour … sets limits to … the state…”.
Then, surely, ‘unproductive-of-surplus-value labour’ undoes or extends those ‘limits’ to state activities?
Can you give an historical example of a state reaching those ‘limits’, as determined by ‘surplus value’?
Surely, prior to that supposed ‘limit’ being reached, the state would collapse due to political factors, rather than this ‘economic’ factor? For example, the Nazi state collapsed because of human activity (mainly the Red Army’s), rather than any issue about ‘un-‘ or ‘productive’ factors.
The more we discuss this, the more I’m becoming critical of the concept, whether Marx is invoked in its support or not.
Did Marx think that this distinction was vital for the building of communism? And if not, why bother? Who benefits from reading texts like Cope’s?
Roosevelt created the Civil Service and the state employed millions of workers to work for the state and most of the jobs belonged to the unproductive sector of the US capitalist economy.
Robbo, the points you make had occurred to me but I didn’t mention them.
The advocates of workers cooperatives instead of socialism, who come in for regular criticism here, argue that workers in such cooperatives are not exploited as any surplus value over and above their wages legally belongs to them; this gives them the “right” like any property-owner to decide how to use it. Our argument is that this legal right comes up against economic reality which forces them, as the price for staying in the competitive struggle to sell their products (and so have a surplus income over their wages and other costs), to reinvest their profit in improving productivity by introducing more up-to-date machinery and methods of production. In other words, to make the same sort of decisions as a capitalist enterprise would. Hence the concept of “self-exploitation” that we have used. I doubt, though, that this can be applied to the self-employed in the same meaningful sense.
The other point you make is that productive (of surplus value) labour is not all that widespread in the countries Cope refers to (you mention 20% as the percentage of the workforce in the “formal sector” in India and that will include many who don’t produce surplus value). Since he claims to adhere to the same definition as Marx of “productive labour” this rather undermines his case as stated by you (not read him myself) as I would think it could be open to doubt that more surplus value is produced in the so-called “Global South” than in the developed capitalist countries. Though the distinction isn’t really between countries but between sectors of the world economy, the capitalistically advanced one of which is to be found in all countries if in varying degrees.
marcos wrote: “Roosevelt created the Civil Service and the state employed millions of workers to work for the state and most of the jobs belonged to the unproductive sector of the US capitalist economy.”
Good point, marcos.
So, surely the adherents of the ‘unproductive/productive’ dichotomy would have to argue that these millions of ‘unproductive’ workers at least hampered, and at worst hamstrung, the US capitalist economy.
But, without these millions, how would the US capitalist economy have expanded and have come to dominate all others?
It seems obvious that without these millions, the US would have collapsed. No bureaucracy, no economy.
I still don’t get the point of regarding these issues as just one of ‘productivity’ (or ‘unproductivity’), because capitalism is as much a political as an economic system, and if the political input of ‘unproductive jobs’ strengthens and develops a capitalist economy, it makes a nonsense of theoretically separating the two.
Of course, at some point any capitalist economy will go into recession, but this has more to do with the nature of the system, than with supposedly ‘unproductive’ labour.
So, surely the adherents of the ‘unproductive/productive’ dichotomy would have to argue that these millions of ‘unproductive’ workers at least hampered, and at worst hamstrung, the US capitalist economy. But, without these millions, how would the US capitalist economy have expanded and have come to dominate all others?
You are still missing the point LBird. Nobody is saying the unproductive sector is not necessary for capitalism to function effectively, only that unproductive sector does not generate surplus value. But capitalism needs MORE than just workers producing surplus value, It also needs workers to realise surplus value at the point of sale. And it needs to workers to perform the various functions of the state. You cannot operate capitalism without a state
But as Adam points out the usefulness of the unproductive/productive dichotomy is that it enables us to see that there are limits to the size that the unproductive sector can grow before the economy starts feeling the pinch. This is because the unproductive sector is financed out of the productive sector and the smaller the latter becomes in relation to the former the less surplus value there is available for capitalisation. In short the competitive accumulation of capital – the driving force of capitalism – starts to get choked off and the rate of profit starts to decline. We can see evidence of this in the long term secular decline of economic growth rates in countries like the US
That at any rate is the argument behind Fred Moseley’s book. The Falling Rate of Profit in the Postwar United States Economy., (1992) which you might want to read up on. The point is that from capitalism’s point of view there is an optimal ratio in the proportions of the productive and unproductive workers in the economy (though this optimum can shift as circumstances change). Too much or too little of one vis a vis the other can have adverse consequences for the economy and in some ways the whole neoliberal project can be seen as a (failed) attempt to prune the unproductive part of the economy as represented by the state sector which the high priests of neoliberalism saw as being bloated and excessive in size. Hence Thatcher’s “rolling back the state” mantra
I dont think it is necessary for workers to understand the ramification of the unproductive/productive dichotomy but it is useful in the same way that Marx’s labour theory of value or his materialist conception of history is useful. Workers can establish a socialist society without any familiarity with these theories at all but understanding them helps
The other point you make is that productive (of surplus value) labour is not all that widespread in the countries Cope refers to (you mention 20% as the percentage of the workforce in the “formal sector” in India and that will include many who don’t produce surplus value). Since he claims to adhere to the same definition as Marx of “productive labour” this rather undermines his case as stated by you (not read him myself) as I would think it could be open to doubt that more surplus value is produced in the so-called “Global South” than in the developed capitalist countries.
Adam
I should perhaps qualify what I said about Cope in that he does concede that some workers in the developed countries “might” produce surplus value but insofar as they do this thus surplus value, he suggests, is entirely used to finance the unproductive sector so that in effect both the capitalists and the workers in the developed countries live off the superprofits generated by the exploited workers in the global south.
On the question of the informal sector versus the formal sector I wouldn’t want to suggest that productive labour is limited exclusively to the latter in the Global South. Though clearly a huge chunk of the informal sector is unproductive I am not quite sure to what extent “supply chain capitalism” (as it is called) penetrates into the informal sector through arrangements such as subcontracting and outsourcing (no doubt based on piece work – what Marx described as the most ruthless form of wage exploitation). The historical equivalent in the UK would be the cottage industry and the “putting out system” involving agents travelling around rural communities providing rural families with the raw material to transform into finished goods (textile products) to be sold in the urban markets for a profit.
This preceded the emergence of large scale production – the industrial revolution – in the shape modern factory system that we associate with the formal sector. But these days the formal sector in the global south is incapable of providing employment for the vast numbers of unemployed or underemployed workers there (notwithstanding the shift in manufacturing to the global south). So something like a cottage industry system seems to have sprung up around the formal sector to serve its needs in the form of sweatshop labour etc
robbo203 wrote: “But as Adam points out the usefulness of the unproductive/productive dichotomy is that it enables us to see that there are limits to the size that the unproductive sector can grow before the economy starts feeling the pinch.“.
Well, I’ve responded to ALB’s statement, but he hasn’t explained this theory of ‘limits’. I’ve given examples (as has marcos) which undermine this theory of ‘limits’, so perhaps you could give a explanation of why those examples are not relevant, in your opinion.
robbo203 wrote: “You are still missing the point LBird.“.
I disagree, but I’m prepared to have it explained to me why I am supposedly doing so, by ALB or you. If neither of you can do so, I’ll be inclined to think that it’s not me who’s ‘missing the point’.
robbo203 wrote: “I dont think it is necessary for workers to understand the ramification of the unproductive/productive dichotomy but it is useful in the same way that Marx’s labour theory of value or his materialist conception of history is useful. Workers can establish a socialist society without any familiarity with these theories at all but understanding them helps“.
If this is true, what’s the point of these concepts, theories and conceptions? Who do they benefit? What’s the point of a socialist party discussing issues that are (apparently) irrelevant to their interests? Especially in these times of extremely low class consciousness, haven’t socialist parties got better things to do? Like explaining in language that workers can understand, employing concepts, theories and conceptions that they understand.
This is actually ‘the point’ that you and ALB seem to be ‘missing’.
This issue about ‘unproductive/productive’ is just a microcosm of a far bigger problem, which is: just who are these discussions meant to develop? Workers or academics? Are we building for socialism or for bourgeois universities?
If you are a leftwing Keynesian then naturally you think that capitalism can be, has been, or is propped up by state spending. This in fact is the economic theory that reformists embrace as it provides justification for their case.
Marxian economics, on the other hand, shows that state spending has to be financed by taxation that ultimately falls on the surplus value producing sector of the economy. If such spending on public services is extended beyond what is required to ensure a trained and healthy workforce, it will undermine the competitivity of products produced within the state’s borders due to less surplus value being left to invest, and actually being invested, in new cost-cutting methods of production. There will eventually be a financial and/or economic crisis and state spending will have to be cut back to allow the economy (profitability) a chance to recover. It used to be called “retrenchment”. Now it’s called “austerity”.
In other words, there cannot be a permanent “public services” economy where the state diverts surplus value from capital accumulation to providing services for its subjects. Reformist governments everywhere have failed every time this has been attempted.
Another misunderstanding held by leftwing Keynesians is that capitalism has an inbuilt tendency to underconsumption and so to permanent stagnation (some even think it has a tendency to collapse because of this). If you believe this then, again, you will think that capitalism can be saved by state spending whether on arms or on public services. In fact, however, capitalism has no such tendency and so doesn’t need to be “saved” by the state stepping in to boost consumption. Capitalism always recovers from a slump because during it the conditions are eventually created (restored profitability) for capital accumulation to resume (until the next slump).
Do workers care about this? What is the importance of workers knowing about this? The only thing that workers care is about producing enough money to support their family and they do not care if they part of the productive or the unproductive sector. Personally, for me, Karl Marx is more than enough
Do workers care about this? What is the importance of workers knowing about this?
Clearly workers dont care about this at the present time just as they dont care about socialism. But they DO care about what they can get out of capitalism and this often takes the form of supporting this or that politician or political party offering a platform of reforms. As socialists we hold that capitalism cannot be reformed in the interests of workers. Part of the explanation as to why this is the case lies precisely in this discussion we are having about the relationship between productive and unproductive labour which clearly shows the priority in capitalism is to make profits above everything else . 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
ALB wrote: “If you are a leftwing Keynesian…reformists embrace…Reformist governments everywhere have failed every time…Another misunderstanding held by leftwing Keynesians…“.
Yes, but if your arguments are directed at Keynesian reformists, who start from an entirely different set of political and ideological assumptions, to us democratic communists, what’s the point of mentioning a concept like ‘unproductive’ which they won’t recognise as legitimate? And if your audience is workers, why use it at all?
Why not just argue that the capitalist system works like a set of lungs, expansion followed by contraction, for ever, a mechanism that can’t be prevented by Keynesian reformist policies, which any worker can understand, and then themselves be able to argue with any other workers or academics who try on the reformist bluff with them?
robbo203 wrote: “Part of the explanation as to why this is the case lies precisely in this discussion we are having about the relationship between productive and unproductive labour which clearly shows the priority in capitalism is to make profits above everything else.” [my bold]
Yes, ‘profits’. Easy to understand. But why relate ‘profits’ to the unnecessary and dismissive concept of ‘unproductive labour’? It would be better and simpler to say:
“Part of the explanation as to why this is the case lies precisely in this discussion we are having about the relationship between exploited labour and exploiting capital which clearly shows the priority in capitalism is to make profits above everything else.” Profits come from exploited labour. All of it. No worker gets called ‘unproductive’.
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’?
After all, Keynesian reformism does work… but only in the expansion phase of capitalism. The reforms must come to an end.
The whole point is… capitalism as a system doesn’t and can’t continuously expand – which is what Keynesian reformism relies upon, continuous expansion.
Simply ask any worker to inflate their lungs… and hold… hold… for ever… they’ll soon get the point about ‘necessity’ within a system. And no calling (many of) them ‘unproductive’.
Actually, in Britain at least, it is a sociological fact that people do in effect make a distinction between “productive” and “unproductive” workers — and get it wrong.
The most common usage of the term “working class” is those who work with their hands, ie produce something material, while “pen pusher” is a common term of abuse of those who work in offices, ie just shuffle paper. And we have seen “workerist” attitudes and antipathy to theory and “academics” expressed here, In the US too, I think, a distinction is made between “blue collar” and “white collar” workers.
Maybe people aren’t interested in the issue as an aspect of economics but you can’t say that people are not interested in the type of job people do. In fact, people widely judge and judge themselves on the basis of it.
Of course we are all agreed here the Marxian distinction is not a value judgement on people for the job they do. The working class is made up of all those obliged by economic necessity to go out on to the labour market and find an employer to pay them a wage (or salary!), irrespective of what job they do. For those of us who accept the Marxian distinction, it is only a tool for analysing how capitalism works.
marcos wrote: “Do workers care about this? What is the importance of workers knowing about this? The only thing that workers care is about producing enough money to support their family and they do not care if they part of the productive or the unproductive sector. Personally, for me, Karl Marx is more than enough“.
I’d argue that workers do have to care and know about these issues, marcos.
If they want to themselves build socialism. They are the ‘active side’, to quote Marx, they must ‘self-determine’ their world.
Where I do agree with you is about the pointlessness of many academic debates, which play no part whatsoever in developing workers’ consciousness of their own abilities and tasks.
But, nevertheless, workers themselves must be able to win ‘academic debates’ – just the ones that they determine are worth winning. And workers must determine, not ‘academics’ for themselves.
Most workers, given half a chance, can run rings round the most educated academic. Our role is to ‘give half a chance’, but only they can grasp this ‘half’ and make it a ‘full chance’ of success.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.