A value-oriented distinction between productive and unproductive labour.

Publication: Capital & Class

Publication Date: 22-SEP-06

Bookmark this article Print this article Link to this article Email this article Digg It! Add to del.icio.us RSS

COPYRIGHT 2006 Conference of Socialist Economists

I. Introduction

The distinction between productive and unproductive labour is one of the cornerstones of the labour theory of value. Savran and Tonak (1999: 115-120) provide a brief enumeration of the relevant theoretical aspects: the analysis of capital accumulation, the determination of economic variables, the rate of profit, state intervention, the growth of the service sector, financial and consumer services, privatisation, etc. Particularly in its fundamental importance to the empirical analysis of capitalist economies, the concept of productive labour is essential for the conversion of economic variables of the conventional national account systems into categories coherent with the labour theory of value. Nevertheless, this importance is paralleled by a continuing controversy over the definition and delimitation of the concept of productive labour in Marxian literature. This can be traced back to the heterogeneous treatment of the subject in Marx's work, principally, due to his main writings on productive labour being inconclusive. As a consequence, any exegetic approach to the reading of Marx must be abandoned. Instead, the search for the greatest explanatory power guides the development of the concept of productive labour in this paper. Controversy over the concept has recently become evident in the debate held both on theoretical and empirical grounds by significant proponents of the labour theory of value. On the one hand, some authors (led by Shaikh) have defended the need to maintain the distinction, and have emphasised its importance in empirical analysis. On the other hand, other authors (led by Laibman) have proposed abandoning the distinction, arguing that it is insignificant for the labour theory of value.

The lack of agreement about the concept of productive labour is really harmful for the labour theory of value. In fact, it hinders any breakthrough in empirical analysis. Does the rate of profit fall? Does it fall as a consequence of a rising proportion of unproductive labour? Is the accumulation of capital affected by an expansion of unproductive activities? What are the consequences of the growth of services, finance, etc. for capital accumulation? What is the role of the state in capital accumulation? These questions have completely different answers depending on the attitude taken towards the concept of productive labour.

Using the first approach, the evolution of the ratio of unproductive to productive labour becomes the key factor in explaining the main economic aspects of the present times. With the second approach, this ratio is irrelevant, and alternative explanations are sought.

In this situation, the labour theory of value does not represent a useful basis for empirical analysis. As a consequence, no valid conclusion for economic policy can be extracted from economic theory (the labour theory of value), and economic agents lose the material basis for their economic decisions: workers can no longer rely on workers' theory. For these reasons, the theoretical analysis of the concept of productive labour is a requirement for the successful development of the labour theory of value and, consequently, for the development of the progressive project.

Marx's most precise definition of productive labour is found in extracts from Chapter VI (unpublished) and Theories of Surplus Value, in which productive labour is defined as labour that produces surplus value. In the former text, Marx establishes that

since the direct purpose and the actual product of capitalist production is surplus value, only such labour is productive ... as directly produces surplus value. Hence only such labour is productive as is consumed directly in the production process for the purpose of valorising capital'. (p. 77)

More concretely, in Theories of Surplus Value he writes that

productive labour, in its meaning for capitalist production, is the wage-labour which, exchanged against the variable part of the capital (the part of capital that is spent on wages) reproduces not only this part of the capital ... but in addition produces surplus value for the capitalist. (p. 152)

Its essential feature lies in its specifically capitalist content, as Marx mentions in a crystal-clear passage:

Productive labour is only an abbreviated expression for the whole relation, and the manner in which labour capacity and labour figure in the capitalist production process. Hence if we speak of productive labour, we speak of socially determined labour. (Chapter VI: 83)

Nowadays, this simple definition is widely accepted among Marxist economists, and it is the basis for the rejection of wrong definitions existing in the literature. (1) However, this consensus soon vanishes when the definition is applied to the classification of different forms of concrete labour. The main point of this paper is to show that the apparent adherence of Marxist economists to Marx's basic definition of productive labour is deceptive. In particular, most interpretations do not entirely consider the social determination of the concept but, on the contrary, are founded on a use-value criterion, which relies heavily on features non-specific to the capitalist mode of production. In contrast, a distinction between productive and unproductive labour is proposed here that is based on specifically capitalist criteria.

Section 2 introduces Shaikh's defence of the distinction based on the concept of productive labour in general, and his support of an 'extensive' classification of unproductive labour. Section 3 deals with Laibman's proposal that the distinction between productive and unproductive labour be abandoned. In both sections, I show that their arguments are not coherent with the social and historical content of the concept of productive labour. In section 4 I offer an alternative approach, in which relevance is placed on the production of value rather than on the production of use value. At the end of this section, two essential aspects of the distinction are addressed: the articulation of production and circulation spheres, and the relation between value and use-value creation. Finally, by way of conclusion, section 5 draws out the implications of this approach for empirical research in capitalist economies.

2. Productive labour in general

Shaikh and Tonak's (1994: 20) analysis of productive labour rests on the existence of a 'prior and more general distinction between production and non-production activities' that sheds light on 'more concrete distinctions between labours which are and are not productive of capital'. They argue, moreover, that the neglect of this general concept has caused the lack of understanding of the concept of productive labour in the literature (Savran & Tonak, 1999: 120). The application of this general concept leads to the distinction of four basic activities of social reproduction: production, distribution, social maintenance, and personal consumption. Personal consumption does not require any expenditure of labour. From the remaining labour activities, only production involves productive labour in general (the term 'productive labour' is used in Savran and Tonak [1999], while Shaikh & Tonak [1994] refer to 'production' and 'non-production' labour. The terms are equivalent). Therefore, 'labour is not synonymous with production' (ibid: 22). (2)

The concept of productive labour in general is only the starting point of their definition of productive labour for capital (Savran & Tonak, 1999: 123). They proceed to incorporate into the analysis the specifics of the capitalist mode of production. (3) In Shaikh and Tonak's words (1994: 29), the concepts of productive and unproductive labour 'take on additional content when ... considered in relation to specific social relations under which they might be conducted ... Labour might be conducted for direct use, for sale for income, and for sale for profit'; but only in the last case 'it represents capitalist commodity production that produces not only use values and values but also surplus value'. Therefore, they arrive at the accepted definition of productive labour: labour that creates surplus value.

To sum up, in addition to being productive in general, productive labour for capital must be 'wage labour which is first exchanged against capital (i.e. it is capitalistically employed)' (ibid: 30). According to this approach, productive labour for capital is a sub-set of productive labour in general, since 'surplus value can only be produced in the immediate process of production' and 'only labour which is productive in general ... can produce surplus value' (Savran & Tonak, 1999: 124).

It should be noted that Shaikh and Tonak's definition of productive labour in general rests on a use-value criterion. For them, 'the process of production involves the creation or transformation of objects of social use by means of purposeful human activity' (Shaikh & Tonak, 1994: 22). Accordingly, 'in the case of production activities, the labour involved is production labour, which utilises certain use...

Read the full article for free courtesy of your local library.