Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 19:47:10 -0500 From: Yoshie Furuhashi <Furuhashi.1-AT-osu.edu> Subject: Re: M-TH: Re: Info Revolution James writes: >A good question, that often gets the wrong answer. The example has >already been raised of the feminist objection to the categorisation >which confuses Marx's analytic category 'productive labour' with a >moralistic denunciation of 'unproductive' domestic work - needless to >say, Marx meant no such thing. > >The importance of the distinction has nothing to do with the usefulness >of labour for mankind in general. Rather it characterises such labour as >is productive of surplus value for capital. The importance of that >distinction is that surplus value, arising out of exploitation, is the >basis of new capital accumulation, and therefore of the reproduction of >the capitalist social relation. > >Capital has a contradictory tendency both to expel labour from >productive employment and to draw it in. Reducing costs makes immediate >sense, but in the long run, only productive labour is a source of new >value. The growth of unproductive labour (Marx uses the example of the >growinbg numbers of domestic servants in his own day, we might refer to >the growth of public sector workers) is indicative of a sclerotic trend >in capitalist accumulation. No moral judgements of the workers involved >follow, but their numerical growth does tell us something about the >over-mature economies that have reduced the relative number of >productive workers. > >On a small point about the productivity of domestic work: The feminist >critique of the characterisation of domestic work as unproductive leadds >to the political demand that such work be reckoned as a part of GDP - >especially in third world countries. Doubtless this would produce some >interesting statistics, but it would also obscure the facts about how >productive a country was in value terms - which remain important for as >long as we live under the market. More to the point, though, it seems an >inadequate response to the penury of isolating domestic drudgery to >'value' it morally, when in economic terms it has no recompense. The distinction between a marxist category of unproductive labor and moralistic denunciations of unproductive labor in common sense use is an important one. But feminist works that I am aware of made a different argument. Unproductive labor performed by women facilitates the reproduction of labor power, thus though invisible, it is a factor in making productive labor indeed productive. Yoshie p.s. If you don't mind, would you allow me to forward this to the Marxism-Feminism list? It might start a new thread. --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005