sergio camara izquierdo - a value-oriented distinction between productive and unproductive labour

8/14/2019 Sergio Camara Izquierdo - A Value-Oriented Distinction Between Productive and Unproductive Labour

1/27

A value-oriented distinction between productive and unproductive labour

A value-oriented distinctionbetvy^een productive andunproductive labourSergio Cdmara IzquierdoThis paper offers a new 'position' in the distinctionbetween productive and unproductive labour, usingtwo opposing approaches to the matter. Shaikh andTonak ground their argument on the concept ofproductive labour in general, and support the needfor an 'extensive' classification of unproductive labour.In Laibman's view, on the other hand, the distinctionshould be abandoned. In this paper, I argue that bothapproaches are founded on the same use-valuecriterion. This non-capitalist criterion is inappropriatefor the analysis. In contrast, I offer a distinction basedon specifically capitalist criteria; the relevance of theanalysis is placed on the production of value ratherthan use value.I. Introduction

Te distinction between productive and unproductivelabour is one of the cornerstones of the labour theory

of value. Savran and Tonak (1999: 115-120) providea brief enumeration of the relevant theoretical aspects: theanalysis of capital accumulation, the determination ofeconomic variables, the rate of profit, state intervention, thegrowth of the service sector, financial and consum er services,privatisation, etc. Particularly in its fundamental importanceto the empirical analysis of capitalist economies, the conceptof productive labour is essential for the conversion ofeconomic variables of the conventional national accountsystems into categories coherent with the labour theory ofvalue. Nevertheless, this importance is paralleled by acontinuing controversy over the definition and delimitationof the concept of productive labour in Marxian literature.This can be traced back to the heterogeneous treatment of


2/27

38 Capital & Class #90

the subject in Marx's work, principally, due to his mainwri t ings on productive labour being inconclusive. As aconsequence, any exegetic approach to the reading of Marxmust be abandoned. Instead, the search for the greatestexplanatory power guides the development of the conceptof productive labour in this paper. Controversy over theconcept has recently become evident in the debate held bothon theore t i ca l and empi r i ca l g rounds by s ign i f i can tproponents of the labour theory of value. On the one hand,some authors (led by Shaikh) have defended the need toma intain the distinction, and have emph asised its imp ortancein empirical analysis. On the other hand, other authors (ledby Laibman) have proposed abandoning the dist inct ion,arguing that it is insignificant for the labour theory of value.

The lack of agreement about the concept of productivelabour is really harmful for the labour theory of value. Infact, it hinde rs any break throu gh in empirical analysis. Do esthe rate of profit fall? Does it fall as a consequence of arising proportion of unp roduc tive labour? Is the accum ulationof capital affected by an expan sion of unpr oductiv e activities?W hat are the con sequen ces of the grow th of services, finance,etc. for capital accumulation? What is the role of the state incapital accum ulat ion? Th ese qu est ions have comp letelydifferent answers depending on the attitude taken towardsthe concept of productive labour.Using the first approach, the evolution of the ratio ofunproductive to productive labour becomes the key factorin explaining the m ain econo mic aspects of the presen t times .With the second approach, this rat io is i rrelevant , andalternative explanations are sought.

In this situation, the labour theory of value does notre pr es en t a useful basis for em pir ica l an alysis . As aconsequence, no valid conclusion for economic policy canbe extracted from economic theory (the labour theory ofvalue), and economic agents lose the material basis for theireconomic decisions: workers can no longer rely on workers'theory. For these reasons, the theoretical analysis of theconcept of product ive labour i s a requi rement for thesuccessful development of the labour theory of value and,consequen tly, for the dev elopm ent of the progressive project.Marx's m ost precise definition of productive labour is foundin extracts fi-om ChapterVI (unpublished) and Theories of SurplusValue, in which productive labour is defined as labour thatproduces surplus value. In the former tejct, Marx establishes that


3/27

39A value-oriented distinction between productive and unproductive labour

since the direct pur pos e an d the actual prod uc t of capitalistpro duc tion is surplus value, only such labo ur is productive... as directly produces surplus value. Hence only suchlabour is product ive as is consumed direct ly in theproduction process for the purpose of valorising capital '.(P- 77)

More concretely, in Theories of Surplus Value he writes thatproduc tive labour, in its m eanin g for capitalist p rod uctio n,is the wage-labour which, exchanged against the variablepart of the capital (the part of capital that is spent onwages) reproduces not only this part of the capital ... butin 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 forthe whole relat ion, and the manner in which labourcapacity and labour figure in the capitalist productionproce ss. Hen ce if we speak of produ ctive lab our, we speakof socially determined labour. iChapter vr. 83)

Nowadays, this simple defmition is widely accepted amongMarxist economists, and it is the basis for the rejection ofwrong defmitions existing in the literature." However, thisconsensus soon vanishes when the defmition is applied tothe classification of different forms of concrete labour. Them ain point of this paper is to show that the apparent adherenceof Marxist economists to Marx's basic definition of produc-tive labour is deceptive. In particular, most interpretationsdo not entirely consider the social determination of theconcept but, on the contrary, are founded on a use-valuecriterion, which relies heavily on features non-specific tothe capitalist mode of production. In contrast, a distinctionbetween productive and unproductive labour is proposedhere that is based on specifically capitalist criteria.Section 2 introduces Shaikh's defence of the distinctionbased on the concept of productive labour in general, andhis support of an 'extensive' classification of unproductivelabour. Section 3 deals with Laibman's proposal that thedistinction between productive and unproductive labour be


4/27


abandoned. In both sections, I show that their argumentsare not coherent w ith the social and historical content of thec o n c e p t of p r o d u c t i v e l ab o u r . In sec t ion 4 I offer analternative approach, in which relevance is placed on theproduct ion of value rather than on the product ion of usevalue. At the end of this section, two essential aspects of thedistinction are addressed: the articulation ofproduct ion andcirculation spheres, and the relation between value and use-value cre ation . Finally, by way of conc lusion, section 5 drawsout the implications of this approach for empirical researchin capitalist economies.

2. Productive labour in generalShaikh andTonak's (1994: 20) analysis ofproductive labourrests on the existence of a 'prior a nd m ore gene ral distinctionbetween production and non-production activities' that shedslight on 'more concrete distinctions between labours whichare and are not productive of capital'. The y argue, moreover,that the neglect of this general concept has caused the lackof understanding of the concept of productive labour in theliterature (Savran & To nak, 1999: 120). The application ofthis general concept leads to the distinction of four basicactivities of social reproduction: production, distribution,social maintenance, and personal consumpt ion . Personalconsumption does not require any expenditure of labour.F r o m the remaining labour act iv i t ies , only product ioninvolves productive labour in general (the term 'productivelabour ' is used in Savran a nd Tona k [1999], while Shaikh &Tonak [1994] refer to ' p roduct ion ' and ' non-p roduct ion 'labour. Th e terms are equivalent). The refore, ' labou r is notsynonymous with production' (ibid: 22).^The concept of productive labour in general is only thestarting point of their definition of product ive labour forcapi tal (Savran & To n ak , 1999: 123). Th ey proc eed toincorporate into the analysis the specifics of the capitalistmo d e of production.^ In Shaikh and Tonak's words (1994:29), the concepts of productive an d unprod uctive labour 'takeon addi t ional content when ... considered in relation tospecific social relations un de r which they migh t be con duc ted.. . Labour might be conducted for direct use, for sale forincome, and for sale for profit '; but only in the last case 'itrepresents capitalist commodity production that produces


5/27

41A value-oriented distinction between productive an d unproductive labour

not only use values and values but also surplus value' .Therefore, they arrive at the accepted definition of productivelabour: labour that creates surplus value.To sum up, in addition to being productive in general,productive labour for capital must be 'wage labour which isfirst exchanged against capital (i .e. i t is capitalisticallyemployed)' (ibid: 30) . According to this approach, productivelabou r for capital is a sub-set of productive labour in general,since 'surplus value can only be produced in the immediateprocess of production' and 'only labour which is productivein general ... can pr odu ce surplus va lue' (Savran & Tona k,1999: 124).

It should be noted tha t Shaikh and To nak's definition ofproductive labour in general rests on a use-value criterion.For them, 'the process of production involves the creationor t ransformation of objects of social use by means ofpurposeful hu m an act ivity ' (Shaikh & Ton ak, 1994: 22).Accordingly, 'in the case of production activities, the labourinvolved is production labour, which util ises certain usevalues in the creation of new u se values ' (ibid: 24). Conversely,non -prod uction labour does not create new wealth, as 'certaintypes of labour share a common property with the activityof consum ptionnam ely, that in their performan ce they useup a portion of the existing wealth w ithout directly resu ltingin the creation of new wealth' (ibid: 25). This type of labouris related to distribution and social maintenance activities.Thus, 'although distribution activity does transform the usevalues i t ci rculates, this t ransformation relates to theirproperties as objects of possession and appropriation, not tothe properties which define them as objects of social use'(ibid: 26). Likewise, in the activities of social maintenance,'use values enter as material inputs into activities designedto protect, maintain, administer, and reproduce the socialorder, and as such they are quite distinct from productionlabour' (ibid: 27).

The distinction between productive and non-productivelabour, therefore, implies the existence of labour that doesnot p roduc e use values. In other w ords. Shaikh and Tonak'sapproach severs the link between the execution of concretelabour and the creation of use valuesa link I believe to begenerally valid. If the link is reta ined, all lab ou r is prod uc tionlabour (of use values) and there is no room for the conceptof non -prod uction labour. The refore, my crit ique of Shaikhand Tonak is centred around a critique of their concept of


6/27


productive labour in general. For this reason, the definitionof use va lue th a t they em ploy i s w or t h so m e c loseexaminat ion.Guerrero (1997: i) rightly points out, in a comment about

their definition of productive labour, that Shaikh and Tonakdefine the concept of use value according to Lancaster 'sclassification of the various characteristics of the objects ofsocial use:Shaikh and Tonak (1994) use Lancas ter 's well-knownapproach ofthe many 'characteristics' of every commodityin order to distinguish between the different propertiesthat encompass the material thing or eflFect produced. So,in any commodity it is possible to find some material(objective) properties, some social properties and otherproperties that are not relevant to our purposes. Only thematerial or objective properties (such as colour, shape orlocation) enter in the definition of use-value. (Guerrero,1997: I)

But in spite of this narrow definition of use value, I do notthink it is possible to consider activities such as distributionand the maintenance of social order as performed by non-produ ction labou r, as Gue rrero himself argues. 'T he crucialpo int is that if one just looks at the definition of use -value, itis absolutely impossible to leave activities like distribution,sales, advert ising, social maintenance, etc . , outside theborders of the def ini t ion given by Shaikh and Tonakthemselves' (Guerrero, 1997: i).Instead, I would argue that both distribution and social-maintenance labour create objective or material propertiesin their products on the same grounds as production labourdoes. For instance, a cashier in a supermarket creates anobject of social use (a service sale) characterised by itsobjective prop erties (and in fact, this is the only way to o btaingoods from a supermarket without the risk of being stoppedby the security service). Precisely, a security guard arrestinga shoplifter is creating a use value (an arrest) w hose objectiveproper t ies a re und eniab le . Th erefore , the separa t ion ofproduction and non-production labour by means of a use-value criterion seems unfounded.The debate about the role played by the concept of useva}ue in the distinction between p roductive and unp rodu ctivelabour has recently been e nriched by the controversy betw een


7/27

43A value-oriented distinction between productive and unprod uctive labour

Mohun and Laibman. Mohun (1996: 44) holds that theassertion that circulation labour creates use values is onlypossible if we employ a neoclassical co nce pt of use value: 'Ifi t is argued that al l workers employed by capi tal areproductive, irrespective of their location with respect to thecircuit of capital , then there must be a slippage in thecategory of "use-value" to i ts neo-classical sense as asubjective property, qua psychological characteristic, of thepurchaser ' .

Laibman (1999: 68), surprisingly, accepts the subjectivecontent of the use-value concept, since he believes that itdoes not contradict the labour theory of value. He writes,'Use-values do have a subjective component, if they areappropriated by conscious human beings; the subject iveaspect is of course socially and historically conditioned, andshaped by class locat ion and product ion relat ions. DoesMohun wish to argue that use-values are physical artefacts,outside of social and cultural determination?' In my view,only objective prope rties en ter into the defm ition of use value,thus I reject Laibm an's position. Th is is not to say, of course ,that I do not recognise that conscious human beings havedifferent subjective appreciation of the objective propertiesofthe use value of commodities. For instance, the objectiveproperties created in the production of a car advertisementare independent of the different subjective responses thatthe advertisement may cause.

O n the other han d, I cannot agree with M oh un's statementthat circulation labour only adds subjective properties tothe u se values. As a m atter of fact, the subjective perce ptionsof conscious human beings cannot arise from nothing, butm ust arise from the new objective prope rties crea ted. I agreewith Guerrero's (1997: i) statement that 'we do not need toremove the neo-classical identification between productionand labour if we understand production as production ofuse-values', and that 'maintaining this identification is notthe same thing as maintaining the neo-classical approach'.

Consequent ly, the only way to rescue the dist inct ionbetwe en p ro du ct ion and no n-p rod uc t ion l abo ur is byclassifying the different objective properties of use valuesfollowing some previously established evaluative criterion.Hence, the claim that the 'classical dist inct ion betweenp r o d u c t i o n an d n o n - p r o d u c t i o n l ab o u r i s e s s en t i a l l yana lytical' (Shaikh & Ton ak, 1994: 25) is unfo und ed." Inconclusion, I believe that it is not possible to identify the


8/27


production of use value (under capitalist social relations)with the creation of value and surplus value.That is to say, it is not possible to sever the link betweenconcrete labour and use value. As a consequence, all kindsof labour must be regarded as production labour (of usevalues), and the concept of non-production labour is simplymisconceived. To sum up. Shaikh and Tonak's intention toprovide an 'analytica l' definition of productive lab ou r is faultybecause of their utilisation of a use-value criterion. In thissense, it is very illuminating to analyse the authors' reasonsfor this use:

The dist inct ion between productive and unproductivelabour is necessary, but not sufficient, for the analysis ofr e p r o du c t i o n . W e ne e d a l so to know t he spe c if iccomponents of unproductive labour and their interactionwith the c ircuits of capital and reve nue. T his is preciselywhy we began our analysis with the general distinctionbetween production, distribution, social maintenance, andpersonal consumpt ion ac t iv i t ies , ra ther than mere lybeginning with Marx's definition of productive labour,(ibid: 31-32)

Hence, i t is the emphasis on social reproduction that ismisleading in their definition of productive labour. For thesocial reproduction of capitalist society, two requisites mustbe met : i ) the quant i ty of surplus va lue crea ted andtransformed into capital must be enough to guarantee theextended reproduction of capital; and 2) the composition ofthe output must have the adequate proportion of means ofprod uction , means of consu mp tion, etc. Of these requisites,the first, social one is specific to capitalist society, while these co nd , t ec hn ica l one is ne ces sa r y in a ll m od es o fproduction.However important the technical aspect of the socialreprodu ction m ay be, it und oub tedly has nothing to do w iththe definition of productive labour. Productive labour is notdefined as labour that meets both the above requisitestheconcept of 'reproductive labour' would fit that description.

On the contrary, the concept of productive labour is limitedto the analysis of value and surplus-value creation; that is, tothe f i rst aspect of social reproduction. Despite Marx'sheterogeneous treatment of productive labour, he is veryclear on this point:


9/27


A large part ofth e annual p ro du ct . . . consists of extremelypaltry products (use values), serving to satisfy the mostmiserable appetites, fancies, etc. But content is entirelyirrelevant to whether the l abour is determined to beproductive or not (although the development of wealthwould of course be checked if a disproport ionate partwere reproduced in this way, instea d of being reconvertedinto mean s of prod uction and m ean s of subsistence, whichen t e r an ew i n t o r ep r o d u c t i o n , w h e t h e r t h a t of thecommodit ies or that ofthe labour capacities themselveswhich are, in short, consumed productively) ' . (Chapter vi:85)

In conclusion, I find no support for the use of the distinctionbetween p roduct ion and non-product ion l abour for thedelimitation ofthe concept of productive labour for capital.Hence I consider all labour activities to be productive ofuse values. '

3. Laibmans' rejectioii ofthe distinctionAm ong Marxist economists , the loudest voice raised againstthe distinction between productive and unproductive labouris Laibman's:

The productive/unproductive labour distinction, in thestrong uses that most proponents (including, it must besaid, Marx) claim for it, is u n s o u n d and shou ld bediscarded as a residue of bourgeois classical economics.(Laibman, 1992: 71)Laibman identifies seven different definitions of productivelabour, each of which, in turn , he refusesalthough in fact,he does not reject the socioeconomic defini t ion, whichdistinguishes betwe en the capitalist and non-cap italist spheresof product ion. He simply asserts that it 'does nothing toresolve the thorny issues surrounding the presumably centralcategories of labour working within capitalist enterprises,especially in the areas of circulation and supervision, thatare thought to be unproduct ive ' (Laibman, 1999: 63). Asstated below, this pro blem can be solved using two differentlevels in the distinction between productive and unproductivelabour. For the purposes of this paper, I limit the analysis


10/27


to the analytical definition of productive labour, whichappliesthe unproductive label to some of the labour that isorganised under the control of capitalists for the purposeof producing and realising surplus value. ... The labourassociated w ith the circulation of com mo dities, as oppo sedto their product ion, is often singled out as a majorcomponent of unproductive labour. (Laibman, 1992: 76)

Although Laibman believes this definition to be compatiblewith the generally accepted definition, he rejects it since'this definition, as stated, is empty or "non-operational"'(Laibman, 1999: 62). Concretely, he asserts that it is notpossible to maintain this distinction without making use ofa non-analytical criterion:

The problem is finding an operational criterion that willidentify workers who do not create value or surplus value.In looking for such a criterion, we have to be careful not tofall back into alternative, and unsatisfactory, definitions suchas the physicalist or the evaluative. (Laibman, 1992: 76)This last warning seems most appropriate; and in fact, Ihave criticised modern versions of the distinction on thesame grounds. For example, Laibman rightly observes thatthe classification of disciplinary and coercive workers intothe unproductive group implies the abandonment of ananalytical criterion. Ac cording to him , 'workers w ho performdisciplinary and coercive functions within the workplace aredeemed unproductive, because they exercise functions ofcapi ta l i s t cont rol ra ther than ac tua l ly "cont r ibut ing toproduction'". And he points out that the logic behind thisargument is that 'given more advanced social relations, thecoercive apparatus in capitalist workplaces are unnecessaryand wasteful'. Hence the argument falls into 'the presumablysurpassed and unacceptable evaluative position' (Laibman,1999: 63). Laibm an, he re, is answering M oh un 's (1996: 37)position: 'Labour which enforces hierarchy and disciplinearises out of the need for capital to retain coercive controlover the class antagonisms inherent in the capital relation.The labour which performs this function merely personifiesthe coercive power of the latter, and in so doing does notcreate value'. Surprisingly, when Mohun considers these


11/27


critiques, he asserts that 'the necessity or otherwise of ap a r t i c u l a r t y p e of l a b o u r is a dif ferent c r i te r ion fordistinguishing types of labour from that with respect to theirlocation in the circuit of capital' (ibid: 42). As Laibman(1999: 65) evidences, his reasoning 'does not fit easily intothe circuitry framework'.Laibman carries on with his critique of the analyticaldefinition, tackling the distinction between production andcirculation labour. He recognises that this distinction 'is atleast superficially m ore conv incing, in that circulation labourcan presumably be identified with distinct phases of thecapital c ircui t ' . However, he insists that no convincingcriterion has been given to suppor t it 'other than the imageryof the circuit with its phases or "metamorphoses" ' ( ib id :66). Without any doubt , the hub of the matter lies in whatLaibman considers to be a valid analytical criterion: whatwould be, in his opinion, an operative criterion with whichto distinguish between production and circulation labour?His answer cannot com e as a surprise: an analytical criterionmust identify the moments in which labour activity createsnew use values from the moments in which it does not:

T h e critical question is wh ether an aspect of buy ing, selling,insuring, legal, accounting labour can be identified, that isnot reducible in further analysis to some aspect of thetransformation and processing of use values: the concretelabour activity that provides the bodily form (to use thewell-known Volume I metaphor) for abstract labour andthe creation of va lue.... At what point does the productionof use value stop? (Laibman, 1992: 77-78)Laibman, therefore, is of the same opinion as that expressedin the greater part of the literature, including in Shaikh andTonak: for him, the dist inct ion between production andcirculation must be grounded on a use-value criterion. Theonly difference is that he believes this criterion to be non-operative: either it is not feasible to delimit these moments,or all the labour activity must be considered as productionlabour. As a consequence, Laibman (1999: 63) thinks that' t h e a t t e m p t to g r o u n d the ana ly t i ca l d i s t inc t ion onsomething solid had failed, and the analytical use of theproductive/unproductive dist inct ion should therefore beaband oned ' . Therefore, 'the clear positive im plication of thisconclusion is that all waged labour employed by capitalists


12/27


13/27


distinction is made by Marx in a concise and precise mannerin Chapter vi. (Note that since Chapter vi is an unpublishedappendix to the first volume of Capital, which is devoted tothe process of capitalist production, Marx's analysis dealsexclusively with the first level of the d i s t i nc t i on ) . Heacknowledges that 'the capitalist labour process does notabolish the general determinations of the labour process. Itproduces products and commodit ies ' . But he also points outt h a t 'the l abour p rocess is only a m e a n s to cap i t a l ' svalorisation process' (Chapter vr. p.8). In other words, 'theowner of labour capacity ... is a wage labourer ' , whose labour'no t only preserves in par t and reproduces in part the capitalva lues tha t have been advanced, but at the same t imeincreases them, and therefore converts them into self-valorising value, into capital' (ibid: 79-80). To sum up, 'inc a p i t a l i s t p r oduc t i on , the p r o d u c t i o n of p r o d u c t s ascommodit ies, on the one hand , and the form of labour aswage labour, on the other, become absolute' (ibid: 81).

Following this definition, non-capitalist labour can beclassified according to the requisite (s) it fails to meet. Forexample, 'every productive worker is a wage labourer; butthis does not mean that every wage labourer is a productivewo rker' . This is the case of the wage labour hired 'in orderto be consumed as use value', because it is not employed 'inorder to replace the value of the variable capital as a livingfactor and to be incorporated into the capitalist productionprocess' (ibid: 80). This kind of labour, though waged, isnot intended to mak e profits thr ough the sale of its prod ucts.*Only wage labour exchanged for capital is capitalist labour,while wage labour exchanged for revenue is non-capitalist.Clear examples of non-market wage labour are domesticlabour and public employees. Also, labour can be directedto the market but performed by non-waged labourers. Again,we cannot ta lk about capi ta l i s t labour , far less aboutprodu ctive labour. Th is situation o ccurs as a consequenceofth e coexistence of pre-capitalist forms of pro duction w ithinthe capitalist social formation; independent workers belongin this category. As Marx points out, 'Some of the labourwhich produces commodi t ies in capital ist product ion isperformed in a manner which belongs to earlier modes ofproduction, where the relation of capital and wage labourdoes not yet exist in practice, and therefore the category ofproductive and unproductive labour, which corresponds tothe capitalist standpoint, is entirely inapplicable' (ibid: 82).


14/27


Finally, there is labour that is neither waged nor directed tothe market, such as household labour, which Gouverneur(1990: 2) calls 'au ton om ou s lab ou r'. (See his Table i for asimilar classification of labour in the capitalist mode ofproduct ion.)The next step in the defini t ion of product ive labourconsists in differentiating production and circulation labour.^In this task, the general formula of capital is again a usefulstarting point. Along its circuit , MC...P.. .C'M', capitalperforms different functionsas money capital, productivecap i t a l an d co mmo d i t y cap i t a l an d su f f e r s s ev e r a lmetamorphoses, from money form to commodity form andvice versa. Some transformationsthose represented by ahyphen in the formulatake place in the circulation sphere,while those represented by dots occur in the product ionsphere.

It is precisely this distinction be twe en the p rod uc tion andthe circulat ion spheres in which the foundat ion of thedist inct ion between product ive and unproduct ive labourwithin capitalist production lies. Specifically, it is groundedon Marx's statement that value (and surplus value) is onlycreated in the production process, since in the circulationprocess, value solely undergoes changes in its form whichdo not affect its magnitude:

T he re is in an exchange noth ing (if we except the replacingof one use-value by another) b ut a metam orpho sis, a merechange in the form of the com mod ity. T he same exchangevalue, i.e., the sam e qua ntity of incorpo rated social labou r,remains throughout in the hands of the owner of thecommodity first in the shape of his own commodity, thenin the form of the money for which he exchanged it, andlastly, in the shape of the commodity he buys with themo ney. Th is chan ge of form does no t imply a chang e inthe magni tude of value. . . . So far therefore as thecirculation of commodities effects a change in the formalone of their values, and is free from disturbin g influences,it must be exchange of equivalents. (Marx, 1906: 176)

Nevertheless, both production and circulation are necessaryinstances of the global repro duc tion of capital. H en ce , capitalreproduction is constituted by the sum of production andcirculation time, though these periods affect the valorisation


15/27


of capital the very aim of capitalist produc tion differently.In Marx 's words:The t ime of c i rculat ion and the t ime of product ionmutua l ly exc lude one ano ther . Dur ing i t s t ime o fcirculation, capital does not perform the functions ofp r o d u c t i v e cap i t a l an d t h e r e f o r e p r o d u ces n e i t h e rcommodities nor surplus value. (Marx, 1909: 142)

Subsequently, the activit ies belonging to the circulationsphere imply the performance of circulation labour, whichis unproductive of value and surplus value. Moreover, thelabour and the mea ns of prod uction employed in circulationactivities 'con su m e' pa rt ofthe already-created value. In othe rwords, unproductive circulation activities are fmanced outof value-creating production activities. For this reason, wemust distinguish clearly between capital invested in theproduction sphereproductive capitaland capital investedin the circulation sph ere unprodu ctive capital. Both capitalsclaim an al iquot part of total surplus value, but onlyproductive capital creates it.

The unproduct ive funct ions of capi tal related to thecirculat ion sphere and the agents performing them areanalysed by Marx in volume III of Capital, in which section4 deals with com m ercial c apita l, section 5 with financialcapital , and section 6 with gro und rent. T he emp hasis isplaced on the mechanism by means of which unproductivecapitals appropriate an aliquot part of total profit : thesecapi ta l s obtain the general ra te of prof i t through theredistribution of value which oc curs in the circulation spheredue to the deviations between materialised labour time inthe production of commodities and realised labour time intheir sale.

In summary, I have presented a d is t inct ion betweenprodu ctive an d unp rodu ctive lab our in two steps. T h e firststep different iates between capi tal ist and non-capi tal istpr od uc t io n , and i ts co nte nt is widely acc epted in theliterature. Shaikh andTonak consider i t to be a second stepin the definition of productive labour when it is appliedonly to productive labour in general. Laibman identifies itwith the socioeconomic definition, which he considers correctin its content, though limited in its application. Consequently,the modern controversy over the definition of productivelabou r lies in the subtleties ofth e second step: the distinction


16/27


betwee n prod uc t ion and ci rculat ion act iv it ies . T he twoopposing approaches analysed here base this distinction ona use-value criterion, i.e. on the identification of activitiesunp rodu ctive of use value, yet with different con clusions . Incon trast, I have rejected this criterion an d have argued insteadfor a criterion founded on the production of value. In theremaining part of this section, I again focus on this secondstep, setting the patterns for the identification of productionand circulation activities according to my value criterion.In this task, the focus must be directed onto two essentialmatters: the division between production and circulation,and the relation between value and use-value creation.

Production and circulationLet us return to Laibman's rejection of the definition ofproductive labour. Laibman clearly acknowledges that it isnot possible to dist inguish between labouring act ivi t iesproductive and unproductive of use value, so he concludesthat the distinction between productive and unproductivelabour is ill-founded. While I agree with his acknowledge-ment, the consequence he extracts is, in my view, wrong. Itis easy to see that the differences lie in the interpretation ofthe d is t inct ion between the product ion and ci rculat ionspheres . La ibm an (1992: 77) m aintains th at it is 'essential tod i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n p r o d u c t i o n a n d c i r c u l a t i o n o fcommodities. ... It is quite another thing, however, to speakof production and circulation as distinct "places" and toattem pt to visualise an instant in which a com m odity "leaves"t h e sp h e r e of p r o d u c t i o n an d " e n t e r s " t h e sp h e r e o fcirculation'. In other words, 'production and circulation arenot "sectors ". Th ey are simultaneous-yet-distinct m om entsof the same social process' (Laibman, 1999: 68).

Therefore, Laibman defends a unity of the process ofcapi ta l reproduct ion , as formed by the product ion andcirculation proc esses, in which it is no t possible to 'phy sically'd i s t inguish between these two moments ; ins tead , bothmo men t s t ak e p l ace s i mu l t an eo u s l y d u r i n g cap i t a l i s treproduction. In other words, there is no division betweenthe labour deployed in production and circulation activities:the distinction between the production and the circulationspheres is purely formal, rather than material. Hence, capitalturnover t ime is both and simultaneously production andcirculation tim e. Th is interpretatio n clearly opposes M arx's


17/27

A value-oriented distinction between productive and unproduc tive labour

statement that ' the t ime of circulat ion and the t ime ofproduction m utually exclude one another ' (Ma rx, 1909:142).Laibman considers ' the circuitry formulas [to] have beenmisinterpreted in a mechanistic fashion to imply an artificialseparation of circulation and produc tion. ...T he se conceptualdevices should n ot, howeve r, be used to imply that use-valuespass "from" a distinct sphere of circulation "to" a sphere ofproduction, and then out again' (ibid.). Actually, he suggests,'the metamorphoses in the circuit of capital can be treatedmore metaphorically than literally' (Laibman, 1999: 71).I ag ree en t i r e ly wi th Laibman tha t p roduct ion andcirculation are not 'sectors' , as we will see in section 5.However , I cannot agree that the d is t inct ion between

prod uct ion and circulat ion is founded on purely formalcriteria with no material content, since I do not share hiscontention that the labour theory of value is not und erm inedb y t h e a b a n d o n m e n t o f t h e p r o d u c t i v e - u n p r o d u c t i v edistinction: 'Neither the proposition that value and surplusvalue are created in production (not circulation), nor thedistinction between p rodu ction and (re) distribution of value,requires that labour be rigidly separated into productionlabour and circulation labour' (Laibman, 1999: 71). Laibmanintends to endorse a dist inct ion of the product ion andcirculation spheres valid for Marx's Capital Volume I, butnot for Volumes II and III. On the contrary, I believe thatthe the oretical pow er of the analysis in Volume I is du biou sif we do not se parate prod uc tion and circulation labour. Also,the explanatory power of the analyses carried out in sections4, 5 and 6 of Cap ua/Vo lume III is neglected.

First, Laibman (1992: 77) acknowledges the usefulnessof the sep aration of pro du ction and circulation in Volume I:'Marx lays the groundwork for the theory of surplus valuein volume I of Capital by developing both the distinctnessand the close interdepen dence of prod uction and circulation,and his generating insight is that surplus value arises onlyin production that is also a moment of circulation, that is,both within and without the process of circulation'.

He also praises the use of the comparison between purecommodity circulation and capital circulation: 'Marx's CMC vs. MCM' distinction is a bril l iant insight intotwo forms of m arke t relations, and his questions surro und ingthe origin of surplus value were a path-breaking means ofinvestigating the connection between the surface structureof formal equal i ty in exchange and a deep structure of


18/27


exploitation and coercion' (1999: 68). However, he judgesthat the compa rison can be maintaine d even thoug h he rejectsthe concept of unproductive labour. In my opinion, Marx'saim in Volume I is no t to show la bou r as the only source ofvalue (this constitutes his starting point), but to demonstratethat value is only created in the act of production. Therefore,Marx's effort is senseless if we consider exchange as a purelyformal act, with no labo ur activity attac hed to it. To sum up,the separation of production labour and circulation labouris essential for the proposition that labour is solely createdin production.^

Second, Laibman is against the distinction between theprodu ction and the circulation sphere u sed in Volume III,and he rejects the theory of comm ercial capital. In my op inion,this implies that many phenomena occurring in capitalismrem ain unex plained . Fo r instan ce, the generalised difficultiesof com m odity realisation associated w ith crises can no t entailan absolute increment in circulation labour (devaluation)and a relative decrement in production time (valorisation)^instead, they produce a general increase in the value ofcommodi t ies .

In co nt ra s t , La ibm an (1999: 70) asser t s that 'o th erquestions in the theory of redistribution of surplus value,such as the interest rate and the retum to interest-bearingcapital ' remain. However, this is only reconcilable with hisrejection of the existence of circulation labour if he arguesthat although interest-bearing capital is not productive ofvalue or surplus value, the lab our activities carried ou t w ithinits circuit (as represented in the simple formula MM')are productive. In other words, that unproductive capitalemploys produc tive labour! Alternatively, one m ay think th atno labour is necessary for interest-bearing capital to obtainits share of total surplus value.In any case, no convincing reconciliation is provided.Therefore, the existence of circulation labour is a necessarycondit ion for the existence of unproduct ive capi tal andunp rod uctiv e activities. Of course, there is prod uctive labou ractivity related to interest-bearing cap ital I am not defendinga 'sectoral' classification of circulation labour, as argued insection 5. But it does not negate the necessary existence ofunproductive labour due to the existence of interest-bearingcapital .To summarise, I think a complete dist inct ion betweenthe production and circulation spheres is needed if we are to


19/27


preserve the essentials of the labour theory of value. Thisdistinction, nonetheless, cannot be founded on a use-valuecriterion; it must be built on a pure value criterion.Value and use-value creationAt this point, my distinction between production andcirculation labour seems to be indeterminate, as I have notoffered an alternative concrete criterion for the practicalseparation of forms of labour that is different from the use-value criterion. What is the operational criterion for thisdistinction? Paradoxically, some defenders of the use-valuecriterion give us clues as to how we might confer content onthe value criterion. Mohun (1996: 43) refers to the m omentsin, the process of valorisation of capital:

The reproduction of capitalist social relations isinseparable from the reproduction of circuits of capital,and from the way in which values, manifested in particularuse-values appear in successively different forms. Tha t is,concrete labours are understood as the bearers of particularmoments in the valorisation of value, and henceconsequences, not causes, of the latter. The issue is notwhat is happening to value as a result of this or thatconcrete labour, but rather what concrete labour isrequired by this or that moment in the valorisation ofvalue; not the manner in which some particular concretelabour determines how valorisation occurs, but rather themanner in which valorisation determines what concretelabours are necessary.

Here, Mohun rightly points out the core of the matter: the'determinant criterion is the production of value, not of usevalue; nevertheless, in capitalist production, value productionis inevitably connected to use-value production. As aconsequence, the delimitation of production and circulationlabour must entail the identification of certain concrete formsof labour with the corresponding label of productive orunproductive in the different particular cases. It is not thelabour content that operates this classification, but the valuecreation. Actually, the same concrete labour may be regardedas productive or unproductive depending on its relation tothe valorisation process. Conceptually, the analyticaldistinction between productive and unproductive labour doesnot require a use-value criterion. In practice, it is the use


20/27


values and the co ncre te forms of labo ur tha t mu st be classifiedin the particular cases.In the same vein, Savran and Tonak (1999: 42) addressthe critique that since circulation labour is necessary in allmodes of product ion, it m ust be produ ctive, noting that ' thistype of criticism confuses and conflates in an unjustifiablemanner the circulation of use-values and the circulation ofcomm odities, money and capi tal' . H enc e, it is the circulationof com mo dities asvalues (not as use values) and the need totransform the money capital into commodity capital and viceversa that determines the productive character or not of thelabour employed. The refore, the task consists in investigatingthe processes of r ep r o d u c t i o n of the different capitals,identifying the moments of valorisation and the moments ofcirculation (and the concrete labours related to them).

Final ly, it is useful to address Laibman 's (1999: 68)critique: 'To avoid arbitrary reliance on concrete labours ' ,he writes, 'we will have to explain why the concrete labourof title transferring is treated differently from other concretelabours. It is this imputed difference that accounts for theassignment of such labour in the circuit of capital in thefirst place'. Now, it is possible to show why this critique iswrong. Simply, there are no concrete ' labours ' general lyassociated with the title-transferring activity (if we identifyit with the circulation activity).Therefore, we cannot assign any concrete labour to theunproductive label. On the contrary, it is the title-transferringcharacter of some co ncrete forms of labours that place themin the unproduct ive group. Of course, this considerationrequires a thorough investigation of particular cases and ofparticular branches of product ion.T h a t is to say, the classif icat ion of p r o d u c t i v e andunproduct ive labour needs microeconomic foundat ions ,based on the analysis of the valorisation process of everybranch of production. However, this need does not precludethe real content of the dist inct ion being founded on ananalytical value criterion.

5. Unproductive labour and empirical researchThe alternative definition provided above implies analternative approach to empirical research. In this section, I


21/27

A value-oriented distinction between productive and unproduc tive labour

briefly elucidate the important differences between theorthodox approach and mine, drawing the conclusions ofthis paper.The main d i f fe rences l i e i n the de l imi t a t ion o funproductive circulation activit ies. I agree with Laibmanthat circulation activities are not sectors, nor can they beident if ied with branches of product ion of convent ionalnat ional account systems: On the contrary, I think thisidentification is a consequence of a pervasive utilisation ofthe use-value c riterio n, with perverse effects for the e mpiricalresearch of capitalist economies. Actually, the conventionalclassification of branches of production in national accountsis based o n the different use values pro du ce d. Th erefo re, it isonly if we use a use-value criterion that we can identifycirculation activities with some branches of production. Inconclusion, commercial capital, financial capital and groundrent do not have any correspondence with the branches ofproduction of conventional national accounts: trade, financeor other sectors.

In spite of this, I regard these sectors as productive ones,inserted in the general circuit of capital MC...P.. .C'M'. Correspondingly, inside them we find both productionand circulation labour, as in any other sector. For instance,the trade sector involves the production activity of a saleservice (which includes concrete o perations such as tran spo rt,storing, packing and advertising, among others) that createsboth value and surplus value. Of course, circulation activityis also to be found within this sector. T h e sa me holds truefor the fmancial sector and production activities such asmoney transfers, security-box renting, the creation of bankacco unts, etc. In conclusion, the presence of prod uction andcirculat ion act ivi t ies in these branches of product ion isqualitatively com parab le to that existing in any other br an ch .The quantitative presence may vary from one branch toanotherj and there might exist evidence supporting a greaterparticipation of circulation labo ur in these branc hes. H ow ever,I explicitly reject any direct identification of trade, finance,etc. with the unproductive circulation spheres.

No twithstanding , this methodological error is com m ittedin a vast majority of empirical investigations. For instance.Shaikh and Tonak (1994: 252) consider the totality of thetrade, f inance and real-estate sectors as non-product ionactivities; hence, they classify all the labour employed inthese sectors as unprod uctive. W hat is mo re, they include in


22/27


t h i s ca t egory the non-product ion l abour be long ing topro duc tion sectors (ibid: 295). Similarly, M oseley (199 1:17 6-177) assigns the fmancial, insurance and rent sectors to theunproduct ive category. In terms of the t rade sector , heassumes that unproductive labour accounts for the greaterpart of the sector. ' Other empirical works assume identicalhypotheses. As a consequence, their estimation of the ratioof unproductive labour to total labour has steadily increasedduring the last decades, due to the increasing participationof trade and finance in total output. Hence, estimates ofeconomic categories like the rate of surplus value or profitare strongly affected by this evolution.

I n my o p i n i o n , a m i c r o e co n o m i c c l a s s if i ca ti o n o fp roduct ive and unproduct ive l abour based on a va luecriterion would not show these trends, and the proportionof unp rodu ctive to total labo ur wou ld no t play any significantrole in the explanation of the long-term evolution of maineconomic categories. In this respect, my view is closer tothat of those who reject the concept of unproductive labourwithin capitalist production: 'There are many reasons whyprofits may rise or fall, but the proportion of "productive"and " unp rodu ctive" workers has nothing to do w ith this riseor fair (H ou ston , 1997: 138). Actually, in the absence of anadequ ate microeconom ic separa tion of p rod uct ion andcirculation, a n em pirical analysis of capitalist econ om ies m ayperfectly assume that the ratio of circulation to total labouris constant over the period, as in Camara (2002, 2003). It isworth noting that this unorthodox alternative approach tothe distinction between productive and unproductive labouri mp l i es a m u ch m o r e o r t h o d o x i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h eaccum ulation trends than the traditional orthodox approac h.However, there are still many points about the influenceof unproduct ive l abour in cap i t a l i s t economies to beinvest igated. Although I bel ieve that the proport ion ofunprodu ctive labo ur does not play any role in accum ulationtrends in the long term , it is no t so in the short te rm . T hu s,recurrent difficulties in the realisation of commodities, thecorresponding increase in unpaid loans and mortgages andso on, which are associated with capitalist production, maycause cyclical behaviour in the ratio of unproductive to totallabour . In o ther words , c i rculat ion costs may becomeexcessive in periods of crisis, as happens with productioncosts. It is essential to investigate the general behaviour of'circulation costs' and the question of whether there exists a


23/27

59A value-oriented distinction between produc tive and unprod uctive labour

t endency o f t hese cos t s t o decrease in a compet i t i veenv i ronm ent , as happ ens w i th p rod uct ion cos t s. Th eseinvest igat ions could provide a real breakthrough in theunderstanding of capi tal ist economies within the labourtheory of value, instead of the devastating effects of theincreasing impo rtance being placed on unprodu ctive labour.

Acknow l edgmen t sThis paper was written while I was a postgraduate studentin the Dep artm en t of Applied Econom ics at the U niversidadComplutense de Madrid. I wish to thank Diego Guerreroand my stud en t colleagues for their helpful com m ents durin gour discussion o fthe subject. Any remaining e rrors, of course,are mine. A previous version of this paper was presented atthe fourth annual conference ofthe Association of HeterodoxEco nom ists, held in Du blin from io ii July 2002.

NotesIt is possible to find several classifications of wrongdefinitions of produ ctive lab our. T he physicalist definitionconsiders productive that labour which creates tangiblecom m odities. Th is is Ada m Sm ith's second definitionand, though practically banished from the l i teraturenowadays, i t was dominant among the Soviet theoristsand p resent in the work of some W estern econom istssuch as Poulantzas (Savran & Ton ak, 1999: I5o n, 136;G uer re ro , 1989 : 252-25 5 , 255-258) . T he evaluativedefinition evaluates labour and its products accordingto a stand ard of social usefulness, and its main pro po nentsare Gillman, and Baran and Sweezy (Laibman, 1992:75; Shaikh & Ton ak, 1994: 20; Gue rrer o, 1989: 27 6).Finally, the reproductive definition classifies into theunproductive group that labour whose products are notused in the reproduction of capital. Morris, Blake andGough consider the product ion of luxury goods asunproduc tive (Gu errero, 1989: 27 7-2 82). Th e Sraffianand 'g lobal ' vers ions al so f i t in to th is def in i t ion(Laibman, 1992: 72-73). Finally, i t also encompassesthe claim that labour which increments the use value of


24/27


t he workfo rce i s p ro du ct iv e , as found in G ou gh ,O 'Co nn or, or inYaffe and Bullock (Gu errero , 198 9:2 89 -298) .

2. Savran and Tonak (1999: 121-123) provide a slightlydifferent classif icat ion, with f ive social act ivi t ies:product ion, circulat ion, dist r ibut ion of the product ,personal and social consumption, and reproduction ofthe social order. Consumption and distribution do notinvolve expenditure of labour, while circulation andreproduction of the social order imply the performanceof non-production labour.3. In this vein, Savran a nd Ton ak (1999: 124) a ssert that 'adefinition of productive labour based on the concretecharacter of the labour spent in the production processis manifestly insufficient w ithin the co ntex t of capitalism.4 . Note that it is not the usefulness or inner coherence ofthe distinction that is under critique here. Even if thisevaluative distinction might be operative and coherent,it is not useful for the definition of productive labour

for capital , since the 'general rule' of the social andhistorical conte nt ofth e conc ept is broken . In fact, Savranand Tonak (1999: 144-145) themselves adm it to thelimited validity that they assign to this 'rule':Wh en M ar x emp h as i s e s t h a t d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w eenproductive and unproductive labour is indepe nden t of andindifferent to the type of use-value prod uce d, his statementis ... restricted to that set of use-values which correspondto the set of productive labour in general. ... The type ofuse-value tha t results firom a certain activity is imm aterialto the distinction between productive and unproductivelabour only when the activity in question is part ofproduction.

5. Although not explicitly identified with the concept ofproductive labour in general, the use-value criterion isvery com m on in the l i terature. Carchedi (1991: 28) writesthat 'any labour process which does not affect the usevalue of a material object, such as the purchase and sale,banking and insurance, etc. , should be regarded as aformal transformation and thus u nprod uctive. Th is is aformal mater ia l labour process which can produce


25/27

A value-oriented distinction between productive an d unproductive labour

nei ther value nor surplus value' . In the same vein,Le adb eater (1985: 597) considers tha t 'the decisive poin tMarx recognised is that labour expended in genuinecost [of circulation] does not affect physically the p rocessof prod uction or use values of com m odities' . L eadbe ateradmits, too, that Marx's 'remarks to the effect that usevalue does not matter refer specifically to the sphere ofproduction, not circulation' (ibid: 599).A flagrant instance is to be found in Mo hu n. After statingtha t his distinction is 'ana lytic' and tha t 'in the valorisationof value, it does not matter what use-value is produced;instead, what is required is a specification ofthe m om entsof that valor i sat ion ' , he goe 's on to say that ' thecommodity being traded undergoes no transformationwhatsoever, other than a change of ownership, andneither use-value nor value is pro du ced ' (M ohu n, 1996:44 ,4 3- 4 4) . More recently, he reiterates this proposition:

Does an activity produce a new use-value or alter anexisting one in some way? ... For those who assertthat all wage labo ur is produc tive, then all such labourdoes prod uce a new u se-value, or does alter an existingone, and it does produ ce surplus va lue .. . . Conversely,for those who asser t that some wage labour i sunproductive, then that labour does not produce anew use-value, or does not alter an existing one, andit does not produc e surplus value, bu t rather c onsum esit ' . (Mohun, 2000: 5)

The distinction between market and non-market wagelabour is analogous to the distinction between capitaland revenue: it plays an important but limited role inthe definition of productive labour. In spite of this, ithas often been used to encompass its whole complexity.This level of the distinction is only introduced into theanalysis in Volumes II and III of Capital:

The capitalist, as representative of capital engaged inits valorisation process produ ctive capitalperformsa productive function, which consists precisely ind i rec t ing and exp lo i t i ng p roduct ive l abour . Thecapitalist class, in contrast to the other consumers ofsurplus value, who do not stand in a direct and active


26/27


relation to its production, is the productive class parexcellence. ... As yet, we are only acquainted withcapi tal within the direct product ion process. Thesituation with the othe r functions of capital and withthe agen ts used by capital to perform these functionscan only be examined later'. iChapter vr. 89)

Houston (1997: 132) believes that the conclusions ofVolume I cannot be made extensible to capi tal ism:'Simple commodity production and exchange are partof a system of social relations which are not capitalist,and abstract conclusions drawn from the CMCcircui t are not necessari ly appl icable to a differentcon crete , capitalism. W hatever the role of exchange andcirculation in petty commodity production, it is hardlycomparable to that of an advanced capitalism system'.He commits two errors: i) he believes that Volume Ideals wi th non-capi ta l i s t social re lat ions , s ince hecon s ide r s va lue to be a ca t eg ory non-sp ec i f i c t ocapitalism; and 2) he assumes the unaccep table 'sectoral 'determination of circulation labour.Moseley makes two sets of estimates. First, he obtainsan average proportion of unproductive labour of 55.46per cent (see tables A.7 and A.8 on pp. 168-169), andthen he raises it to 60.49 per cent (see tables A.9 andA.io on p. 170).

ReferencesCamara, Sergio (2002) 'La rentabilidad del capital y suscomponentes: El caso de Espana (1964-2000)' in Economia:Teoria y Prdctica, no. 17, pp . 45-74.(2003) 'Tendencias de la rentabi l idad y de laacumulacion de capital en Espana, 1954-2001', Ph .D . thesis,Universidad Complutense de Madrid.Carchedi, Guglielmo (1991) Frontiers of Political Economy(Verso).Gouverneur, Jacques (1990) 'Productive labour, price/valueratio and the rate of surplus value: Th eore tical viewpointsand empirical evidence' in Cambridge Journal of Economics,vol. 14, no. I, pp. 1-27.Guerrero, Diego (1989) 'Acumulacion de capital, distribucionde la renta y crisis de rentabilidad en Espana (i 954 -1987)',


27/27

A value-oriented distinction between produc tive and unprod uctive labour

Ph.D. thesis, Universidad Compiutense de Madrid.(1997) 'Unproductive labour', unpublished paper.New School for Social Research.Houston, David (1997) 'Productive-unproductive labour; Restin peac e ' in Review of Radical Po litical Econom ics, vol. 29, no.1, pp. 131-139.Laibman, David (1992) Value, Technical Change and Crisis:Explorations in Marxist Economic Theory (M. E. Sharpe).(1999) 'Productive and unproductive labour: Acom m ent' in Review ofRadical Political Economics, vol. 31, no.2, pp. 61-73.Leadbeater, David (1985) 'The consistency of Marx's categoriesof productive and u nproductive labour' in History of PoliticalEconomy, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 591-618.

Marx, Karl (1969 [i86i]-3) Theories of Surplus Value, Part I(Lawrence and Wishart).(1864) Cap itulo VI [inedito]: Resultados De l ProcesoInmediato de Producdon (Siglo xxi editores), Englishtranslation taken from [Ch. vi]

(1906 [1867]) Capital,Volume I:The Process of CapitalistProduction (Charles H. Kerr & Company). (1909 [1885]) CapitalyVolume ii:The Process of CapitalistCirculation (Charles H . Kerr & Com pany).Mohun, Simon (1996) 'Productive and unproductive labour

in the labour theory of value' in Review of Radical PoliticalEconomics, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 30-54 .(2000) 'Productive and unproductive labour in theus economy: Does the distinction matter? A reply to H ous tonand Laibman', paper presented to the mini-conference ofthe International Working Group on Value Theory (IWGVT),Washington, 24-26 March 2000.Moseley, Fred (1991) The Falling Rate of Profit in the Post-WarUnited States Economy (Macmillan Press).Savran, Sungur & Ah m et Tonak (1999) 'Produ ct ive andunproductive labour: An attempt at clarification andclassification' in Capital & Class, no. 68, Summer, pp. 113-152.Shaikh, Anwar & Ahmet Tonak (1994) Measuring the Wealth ofNations: The Political Economy of National A ccounts (Cambr idgeUniversity Press).

sergio camara izquierdo - a value-oriented distinction between productive and unproductive labour

Documents