Suchergebnisse

It is commonly proposed by those who accept the distinction between productive and unproductive labor that a rising proportion of unproductive labor constitutes a burden to the operation of a capitalist economy, because unproductive labor is paid out of surplus-value, leaving less available for accumulation. This paper evaluates recent attempts to estimate empirical trends in productive and unproductive labor in the U.S. economy since 1964. These attempts are flawed by a failure to distinguish between working class unproductive labor and the unproductive labor attributable to managers-plus-capitalists. This distinction is at the heart of the trends in the neoliberal era, and these trends suggest that the distinction between productive and unproductive labor is less empirically useful than a focus on class. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Inc., copyright holder.]

It is commonly proposed by those who accept the distinction between productive and unproductive labor that a rising proportion of unproductive labor constitutes a burden to the operation of a capitalist economy, because unproductive labor is paid out of surplus-value, leaving less available for accumulation. This paper evaluates recent attempts to estimate empirical trends in productive and unproductive labor in the U.S. economy since 1964. These attempts are flawed by a failure to distinguish between working class unproductive labor and the unproductive labor attributable to managers-plus-capitalists. This distinction is at the heart of the trends in the neoliberal era, and these trends suggest that the distinction between productive and unproductive labor is less empirically useful than a focus on class.

In a recent article in this journal, Kliman (2001) has argued that only a temporal single system interpretation (TSSI) of Marxian value theory preserves the fundamental Marxian theorem (FMT) and hence finds the origin of profit solely in exploitation. This paper first outlines the TSSI in order to emphasise the particular and controversial definition of value on which it depends. Kliman's logical demonstration of the FMT is then shown to fail on exactly the same grounds for which he indicts rival interpretations.

Responding to criticisms of Mohun (1996) by Houston (1997) & Laibman (1999) in the RRPE, this paper explores the empirical consequences of the competing definitions proposed for productive labor, & concludes that abandoning the productive-unproductive labor distinction renders the Marxian theory of capitalist accumulation an unconvincing account of US accumulation from 1948 to 1989. 8 Tables, 4 Figures, 1 Appendix, 17 References. Adapted from the source document.

Using a particular understanding of the labor theory of value, this paper surveys the criticisms made of the Marxian distinction between productive and unproductive labor, and rejects them as misconceived. The distinction is then used to draw some consequences for how "the rate of exploitation" should be understood.