Burn your book, Michael Lebowitz…
I don’t agree with your basic premise. I asked you for your data on necessary labour, and you replied by offering information about ‘productive’ jobs compared to ‘unproductive’ ones. By productive, you mean jobs that produce ‘real goods’ as opposed to services, which produce nothing, add no value to the economy and do nothing for the standard of living of people.
By your definition, a job producing snowmobiles is productive, presumably necessary and must be valued whereas the activity of a teacher, nurse, doctor, community worker is useless and unproductive. These are categories warped by capitalism, and we need to break out this ideological straitjacket [which they didn’t do in the USSR— and your distinction is precisely the one that was used in Soviet income accounting]. Speaking as a Marxist and socialist, we need to start from an entirely different premise than capitalism— the premise of human development, the need to create conditions by which ‘rich human beings’ and ‘rich individuality’ can be fostered. From that premise, the activity that you are assigning to the garbage can must be especially valued.
Okay, Michael – we won’t call you Mr. Lebowitz. But, if you keep up this line of argument, we might also stop calling you a socialist, as well. We are trying to assign education and medical care to the garbage can? What nonsense!
The most astonishing thing about your response was its similarity to the response sent to us by John De Graaf, author of Affluenza, and documentary film maker, who wrote:
The idea that service jobs produce nothing is not only absurd, it’s a huge insult to the Americans who work in them. The fact is that for the sake of the environment if we are to grow at all it will need to be in the service, not “productive” area. The suggestion that those who produce cars make something of value while those who teach children or take care of the sick do not is not an alternative to our current way of thinking but rather a celebration of stuff and materialism. What a way to win friends and influence people. Where in the world do you come up with these ideas?????
It’s fair to say that many service jobs are make-work and probably superfluous, but who needs more wide screen TVs either or more cars, when we are drowning in pollution and heating up the climate. This should not be seen as an argument between goods producing and service producing jobs but between those which increase human welfare and those which do not.
Productive versus non-productive work
We were rather taken aback by John’s response, since it was clear we were referring to economic value, and not human value. We chalked up his response to ignorance regarding the economic category, value. But, when you, an avowed “Marxist and socialist”, come up with the same silly pap it simply staggers the imagination.
To use one of your and John’s examples, we did not call teaching “useless” nor “unproductive”, we stated that it was non-productive. We meant by that, that teaching children, although of great human importance, does not itself produce anything of economic value – i.e., a commodity. It does, however, consume things of economic value – books, buildings, heat, electricity etc.; and, teachers also consume the value of their salaries. However, all the things consumed in the course of teaching are the product of the goods producing sector of the economy and not the service sector.
Since you are the Marxist and socialist (and we are neither) we remind you of what importance this distinction has in Marxist and socialist thought, by quoting Henryk Grossman. The non-productive strata of society is a particular category:
They do not enlarge the mass of actual products but, on the contrary, reduce it by their consumption, even if they perform various valuable and necessary services by way of repayment. The income of these people is not obtained by virtue of their control of capital, so it is not an income got without work. However important these services may be they are not embodied in products or values. In so far as the performers of these services consume commodities they depend on those persons who participate in material production. From the standpoint of material production their incomes are derivative.
Grossman goes on to state:
What significance does the existence of these people have for the reproduction and accumulation of capital? In so far as their material incomes are dependent incomes — that is, drawn from the capitalists — we are dealing with groups which are, from the standpoint of production, pure consumers. As long as this consumption by third persons is not sustained directly at the cost of the working class, surplus value or the fund for accumulation is reduced. Of course these groups perform various services in return, but the non-material character of such services makes it impossible for them to be used for the accumulation of capital. The physical nature of the commodity is a necessary precondition of its accumulation. Values enter the circulation of commodities, and thereby represent an accumulation of capital, only insofar as they acquire a materialised form.
To put it simply, the value contained in a snowmobile, or a book, or a school building is a product of the necessary labor expended during the production of each. This labor is necessary if these things are to be later consumed by the teacher at work (books, and school buildings) and in her own time (in the case of the snowmobile).
Further, while teaching the next generation is absolutely important, and of great human value, the profession, teacher, is only important if the parents are working such long hours, and with such poor opportunity to develop their intellectual capacity, that they cannot pass on the great wealth of human civilization to their kids. Some parents must become teachers, so that all parents can be worked to the point of intellectual and physical exhaustion.
Necessary versus productive work
The data we gave you was indeed that of goods producing jobs in the society, and this is also roughly the data on necessary labor time in our society, if you take those jobs and multiply them times the average hours of work in industry. Of course, it should be clear that not all necessary work is productive – for instance, transportation, warehouse work, or IT departments. It should also be clear that not all work that ends with a good is necessary – Boeing, General Dynamic, and Lockheed produce many goods for the Defense Department that have absolutely no economic value nor any human value.
That said, how would you explain the addition of 79 million service jobs to the economy over the last fifty years? If our explanation is suspect – that the creation of superfluous non-productive jobs serves only to support unsustainably long hours of work in industry – what one do you offer in its place? Is it that Washington, which even now is trying to spin off public education into another profit center, values teachers, children and education?
You cannot side-step this problem, Michael.
Since the defeat of Connery-Black by the Roosevelt administration during the Great Depression, almost all jobs creation has occurred in work that does not create any value, but that consumes existing values, as we showed in the chart previously published.
The role of debt in the expansion of non-productive work
Further, since the non-productive sector of the economy produces nothing of material value, its growth depends entirely on the promise to provide real economic output in the future, i.e., it depends on debt. It is a promise which cannot be fulfilled, and which, therefore, must be rolled forward into more debt. This has led to an unprecedented expansion of debt in the society, as capital attempts to bridge the gap between total employment in the economy and necessary employment in the economy, by promising future productive work to maintain non-productive consumption in the present:
It is a Bernie Madoff-style Ponzi scheme on a scale that is entirely unthinkable to us – simply defying the ability of the imagination to embrace its apocalyptic implications. It is not just the astonishing levels of debt thus far accrued that pose the biggest problem. To this we must add the material necessity for this debt to grow at an increasing rate just to keep the entire scheme from collapsing. To maintain its present rate of increase, the debt would have to double in the next eight or ten years to about fifty trillion dollars.
The slowdown in the rate of expansion of non-productive work
While nearly all of the growth in employment over the last fifty years has come from non-productive employment, even the slightest slowdown in growth from this source results in massive losses of productive employment. Since, debt (chart above) and non-productive labor (chart below) has failed to continue along their parabolic rises in this crisis, this has had the converse effect of causing a severe contraction in domestic productive output. Since 2008, productive output has fallen by $882 billion, nearly twice the value of non-productive expenditures at $467 billion – even though productive employment only provides one job in 7.
What the above chart suggests is that the real material living standards of working people – which can only be measured as the value of the commodities they consume – is falling precipitously, because the expansion of superfluous hours of work cannot keep pace with the growth in the productivity of labor. If you think there is no difference between labor that produces a commodity, and non-productive, superfluous, labor, then tell us where the millions of unemployed working families – already in the pipeline – are supposed to live?
Based on the above, we believe that it is important not simply to address control of work place conditions and the hierarchical relations within the structure of daily work – it is necessary to rethink work itself, and to question a mode of production under which the survival of billions rests on the constant expansion of non-productive hours of work. Indeed, we believe that control over our conditions of work fundamentally rests on control over our hours of work.
For you and John De Graaf to turn this around and assert that we demean working families forced to perform unnecessary labor as a condition for their mere survival is not simply insulting – it is the scholarly equivalent to libel. We demand proof!
Go back and burn your book – start over, Michael. And, stop calling yourself a socialist until you figure out what the term means.
- Checking on your test let me know 2 years ago
- Guys let this go please#wearethepeople 3 years ago
- Lets get this done#wearethepeople 3 years ago
- The time is now#wearethepeople 3 years ago
- I think it is time to lite the fire guys they are just playing with tony because he has a good heart lets do this thing#wearethepeople 3 years ago
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008