跳至主要内容

What is Value-Producing Labour?

The question is the following: which kind of labour "create" values?

If we answer: it is productive labour "creates" value, then this answer is just a tautology.

If we answer: it is labour that produces products and that is embodied in them "creates" value, then this answer is still ambiguous because you do not define what is the product. Can we say circulation workers produce "service products"? Are they labour embodied in such so-called "service products", and eventually, are their labour productive?

The above answers are not satisfying, these answers still have something needed to be defined. 

So we need another criterion to judge what kind of labour "create" values.

For Masako Watanabe (渡辺雅男. Sorry I just found him in Japanese Wiki, but you can translate this Japanese website page into English by Chrome), a Japanese Marxian economist, to evaluate whether the labour creates value, we need to check whether this kind of labour satisfies the principle of fixed input-output ratio. If the answer is yes, then this kind of labour creates value, otherwise, this kind of labour doesn't create values.

I would like to know how do you think about his opinion?

Anyway, here is Watanabe's argument:

First, recall Marx's original text:

Now let us consider merchant's capital. Firstly, the purely commercial operations. It does not take more time to deal with large figures than with small ones. It takes ten times as much time to make 10 purchases at £100 each as it does to make one purchase at £1,000. It takes ten times as much correspondence, paper, and postage, to correspond with 10 small merchants as it does with one large merchant. The clearly defined division of labour in a commercial office, in which one keeps the books, another looks after money matters, a third has charge of correspondence, one buys, another sells, a third travels, etc., saves immense quantities of labour-time, so that the number of workers employed in wholesale commerce are in no way related to the comparative size of the establishment.

Marx: Capital III, Chapter 17. Commercial Profit

Notice that in the last sentence of this paragraph, unproductive labour - commercial labour does not have a fixed input-output ratio. Therefore, Watanabe argues that we should use the principle of fixed I/O ratio to judge whether a kind of labour is productive or not.

Watanabe has a paper on this topic. I know this paper has Chinese and Japanese versions, but I am not sure whether his paper has an English version. Here is the English title of his paper:

The Value theory of Labor and Productive Labor: On the scope of Value-Producing Labour

评论

此博客中的热门博文

Principle of Subordination of Needs may not Necessarily Lead to the Strictly Lexicographical Order of Choices

This article is aimed to show that there may be a false within Dr. Marc Lavoie's argument about the relationship between principle of subordination of needs and strictly lexicographical order of choices. Principle of Subordination of Needs  Principle of subordination of needs is one of seven principles of consumer choices in Post-Keynesian Economics. Basically, this principle argues that each consumer has a pyramid or hierarchy of needs. We can say Maslow's  model of hierarchy of needs is a good example to express this principle. According to this principle, human's needs are hierarchical. Some needs are relatively more important than others. If consumer has some positive income, this consumer will firstly spend the income on the most important need (for example, food) in order to satisfy this most important need, and then if she still have some residual income, she will spend her residual income on the relatively less important need in order to satisfy it. Actually, this...

A Marxian Response to the Problem of Value Determination in a Joint Production System

In Steedman's book "Marx after Sraffa", he proposed that in a joint production system, the labour values of commodities can be negative, which is in sharp contrast to Marxian theory of labour value. I am not meant to revisit his original argument and mathematical model here. If someone is interested in Steedman's argument, he/she can read the book "Marx after Sraffa". What I want to propose here, is a mixed version that makes me feel satisfied. This answer comes from Anwar Shaikh's "Real Competition Theory" and two Chinese modern classical economists: Feng Jinhua (冯金华) and Hou Hehong (侯和宏). Feng and Hou Let me introduce Feng and Hou's response to Steedman's critique at first. In 2011, they wrote a paper "Can Negative Surplus Value and Positive Profit Coexist?" (《负剩余价值和正利润可以同时存在吗?》), which was published in Journal of Renmin University of China (《中国人民大学学报》). In this paper, Feng and Hou point out that the labour term that appeare...