““There is one sort of labour which adds to the value of the subject upon which it is bestowed: there is another which has no such effect. The former, as it produces a value, may be called productive; the latter, unproductive labour. Thus the labour of a manufacturer adds, generally, to the value of the materials which he works upon, that of his own maintenance, and of his master’s profit. The labour of a menial servant, on the contrary, adds to the value of nothing. Though the manufacturer has his wages advanced to him by his master, he, in reality, costs him no expense, the value of those wages being generally restored, together with a profit, in the improved value of the subject upon which his labour is bestowed. But the maintenance of a menial servant never is restored. A man grows rich by employing a multitude of manufacturers: he grows poor, by maintaining a multitude of menial servants” ([Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations,] b. II, ch. III, Vol. II, ed. McCulloch, pp. 93 and 94).” (TOSV 1, p 155-6)
So, in this passage, the correct definition of productive labour is given as that labour which produces a surplus value - “his master's profit” - in addition to the worker's “own maintenance”. It is further illustrated by Smith's comment that industrialists could not get rich unless the workers they employed did produce a surplus value, over and above the value required for their own maintenance. But, alongside it, in this passage, Smith also talks about labour being productive “... which adds to the value of the subject upon which it is bestowed”, and “ Thus the labour of a manufacturer adds, generally, to the value of the materials which he works upon”. Meanwhile, he writes that, “ The labour of a menial servant, on the contrary, adds to the value of nothing.”
But, as Marx argues, all labour that is expended in the production of use values adds value. The menial servant who cooks a meal for their master adds value to the food, as a consequence of the expenditure of their labour. On this basis, Smith should define it as productive. In fact, what he really means here is that it does not produce any surplus value, i.e. any value over and above the value required for its own reproduction.
If a capitalist employs a cook, who takes £10 worth of food, and adds a further £10 of new value to this food, by the addition of their labour, the capitalist can sell the end product for £20. As a consequence, they can buy £10 of food again, ready to be cooked. Provided the wages of the cook are less than £10, the capitalist can also hire the cook again to cook the food so that it can be sold. However much less than £10, the cook's wages come to, will constitute the capitalist's profit.
If, however, this same capitalist buys the same £10 of food, and employs the same cook to cook this food not to be sold as a commodity, and so as to expand their capital, but only to consume this food themselves, things are quite different. The food they buy will still have a value of £10 and the labour added by the cook will still add £10 of new value to it, but in consuming the end product, the capitalist has consumed this £20 of value along with it. They will have bought the food not as productive constant capital, but purely as a commodity required for its use value, as food, just as they will have bought the labour-power of the cook, not as productive-capital, capable of expanding value, but purely for its use value as concrete labour, for its ability to provide them with a use value.
Having consumed the product, they now have no means of producing a surplus value, nor indeed do they have the means of buying food to replace that consumed, or of buying labour-power to replace that used in cooking the meal. This purchase of labour-power for its specific usefulness as concrete labour is quite different from its use value to capital, as value-creating labour.
“For the use-value of labour-power to the capitalist as a capitalist does not consist in its actual use-value, in the usefulness of this particular concrete labour—that it is spinning labour, weaving labour, and so on. He is as little concerned with this as with the use-value of the product of this labour as such, since for the capitalist the product is a commodity (even before its first metamorphosis), not an article of consumption. What interests him in the commodity is that it has more exchange-value than he paid for it; and therefore the use-value of the labour is, for him, that he gets back a greater quantity of labour-time than he has paid out in the form of wages. Included among these productive workers, of course, are all those who contribute in one way or another to the production of the commodity, from the actual operative to the manager or engineer (as distinct from the capitalist).” (TOSV 1, p 156-7)
“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).” (TOSV 1, p 157)
No comments:
Post a Comment