Date: Wed, 1 May 96 08:47:03 GMT
Subject: Re: Unproductive labor



> 
> Justin wants to know where he went wrong: he didn't distinguish between 
> labor productive of value and surplus value and labor required for the 
> rewalization of surplus value. Both types of labor are required from the 
> standpoint of both the individual capitalist and aggregate capital, but 
> they are nonetheless distinguished by their function *for* capital.
> 

I am not unhappy with distinguishing between labor productive of value and
surplus value and labor required for the rewalization of surplus value.

In the archetypal case, with the capitalist in his top hat in his factory,
with a few middle class male secretaries / book keepers, and his workers
on the factory floor, the distinction is clear.

But in an advanced capitalist society, it isn't clear at all.

I used to work for Fujitsu, a Japanese electronics company. It sells
chips, not software. Yet it employed me to write software for them
which was given away free with the chips. Why ? Because no one
would buy the chips without the software. Was my labour contributing to
the actual product, or was it helping realise it ? At the time,
I definitely thought that it was helping to realise it - although
my job had nothing to with money, structurally it was the same as
someone who does the admin for the credit deals in a car showroom.
Of course, the person who sat at the desk next to me wrote software
which did directly contribute to the product. And so did I, from time
to time.

In my current job, I write very similar software. Yet in a real
technical sense, the product of this company is a hardware / software
package. This is aknowledged by the fact that we get money for both
separately, although everyone knows it's a combined package.

Which category you put my labour in seems to depend on what you
consider to be the product, and what you consider to be work 
done to realise its value. In one case, the software seemd to
be part of the product, the other case not.

But when it comes to say, cars, is the credit deal part of the product ?
When I evaluate the cost of buying a car, this is certainly part of
my calculations. If I go to a small garage, I'll get a better deal but
I'll have to borrow from the bank at commercial interest rates. On the
other hand, if I go to a big garage, the nominal price may be higher but
I'll get a better credit deal.

[ And, incidentally, this question is a political hot potato in the UK
at the moment. British Law said VAT ( sales tax ) should be paid on the
money the customer sees as the price, European Law that it should be
paid on the money the company gets after it has deducted the money 
the credit company charges. European Law overides British Law, so the
money had to be paid pack, and the right wing tax cutting Euro haters got
upset ].

The importance of such calculations is magnified many times when companies
buy fleets of new cars, which, in the UK at least, accounts for more than
50% of new car sales.

I could give other examples - from the point of view of an insurance company,
processing the forms I fill in is part of realising the product. But from
the point of view of the insurance broker, it is the product. Etc, etc.

Adam.

Adam Rose
SWP
Manchester
UK


---------------------------------------------------------------


     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---