Marx picks up Jones for an error in his analysis, where he states that he makes no distinction between slave labour and wage labour, because, he says, “the civil rights of labourers do not affect their economical position.” This is wrong, as Marx sets out in The Grundrisse. The slave stands in no different “economical position” than does the pack animal, or machine.
“Wage-labour on a national scale—and consequently, the capitalist mode of production as well—is only possible where the workers are personally free. It is based on the personal freedom of the workers.” (p 431)
Jones correctly identifies the distinction between productive and unproductive labour as being that set out in Smith's first definition, i.e. labour which exchanges with capital is productive, whereas that which exchanges with revenue is not. As Marx makes clear, in Chapter 4, the definition of “productive”, here, is productive of surplus value. As Marx describes, labour which exchanges with revenue is still productive of value, but not surplus value. For example, a cook employed out of the revenue of a householder produces new value by their labour, but does not produce surplus value.
However, Jones, like Smith, also exhibits some confusion over the issue, because he also defines productive in terms of the production of material commodities. As Marx sets out, in Chapter 4, this only defines the type of labour, which is not relevant in terms of whether the labour is productive of surplus value. A prostitute does not sell a material commodity, but, if they are employed, as a wage worker, by a brothel keeper, they still produce surplus value, equal to the difference between the new value they create by their labour, and the value of their labour-power.
“The distinction made between the labourers who live on capital and those who live on revenue is concerned with the form of labour. It expresses the whole difference between capitalist and non-capitalist modes of production. On the other hand, the terms productive and unproductive labourers in the narrow sense [are concerned with] labour which enters into the production of commodities (production here embraces all operations which the commodity has to undergo from the first producer to the consumer) no matter what kind of labour is applied, whether it is manual labour or not ([including] scientific labour), and labour which does not enter into, and whose aim and purpose is not, the production of commodities. This difference must be kept in mind and the fact that all other sorts of activity influence material production and vice versa in no way affects the necessity for making this distinction.” (p 432)
As Marx described in Part II, the idea that productive labour was only that engaged in material production rather than the provision of services, arose because, under capitalism, capitalist production increasingly became the sole means by which material commodities were produced and sold. Services were only a minor part of the economy, and were mostly provided on the basis of an individual provision of such a service in exchange for revenue. Today, that situation has changed significantly. In the 19th century, a few actors and other performers eked out a living, as wage labourers, employed by theatre owners. Today, the entertainment industry is a huge multi-billion dollar service industry. Similarly, sex workers existed on the edge of society, mostly selling their labour directly to clients in exchange for revenue, with a few employed as wage workers in brothels. Today, the sex industry itself is a multi-billion dollar service industry that fuelled the video recording industry in the 1980's, and has fuelled the Internet in the 2000's, with sex workers employed as wage labourers. Teachers often sold their labour directly to families that employed them as tutors, with a few employed as wage workers by private schools, or employers who had to provide education to their child labourers. Today, tens of thousands of teachers are employed as wage labourers, selling their labour-power mostly to state capitalist employers. Today, service industries and non-material production accounts for 80% of new value and surplus value production. It is thereby the main source of capital accumulation.
No comments:
Post a Comment