Unproductive labor: imperialist countries

glevy at acnet.pratt.edu glevy at acnet.pratt.edu
Sun Sep 10 17:14:34 MDT 1995


Maoist Internationalist Movement wrote:

> Some at Monthly Review have noticed this and simply
> changed the definition of productive labor to include
> more white collar work. We at MIM stuck with the more
> classic definitions and point to the pudding.
> The parasitic working classes of the imperialist countries
> show no tendencies to socialism and in fact organize
> themselves against immigrants and workers abroad.

So that we don't misunderstand each other, could you clarify what you
mean by "the more classic definitions" of productive and unproductive
labor? Why is the inclusion of many categories of "white collar"
occupations as productive (of surplus value) troubling to you? In
particular, could you specify which categories of white collar work that
MR classifies as productive you believe should rather be classified as
unproductive labor?

How is the alleged "parasitic working classes" lack of internationalism
and socialist consciousness the proof in the pudding regarding how
different categories of workers are classified re productive and
unproductive labor?

By the way, welcome.

Jerry


     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------



More information about the Marxism mailing list