OK, so who are the Marxian economics people here?

[Martin Blank]

I wanted to talk with you about something in a day or two.

[KC]

The fuck do you want.

[ZeroNowhere]

"And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw [it], they removed, and stood afar off."

[Martin Blank]

Sigh! Someone wants to discuss some seemingly heavy questions of Marxian social and economic theory, and this is the response they get. Sad, really.

[ZeroNowhere]

No, it is quite interesting. I presume that this refers to the revelation referred to in the Stalin poll thread? I haven't read the book in question, so I'd be interested in what you've come up with.

[Manic Impressive]

Sigh! Someone wants to discuss some seemingly heavy questions of Marxian social and economic theory, and this is the response they get. Sad, really.
No this is the response you get when you ask a vague question where people have to blow their own trumpet by saying yeah I'm the best at Marxian economics. Make a thread with an actual point and they will come.

[Amphictyonis]

I am versed in the Marxian Tradition. No Jedi of course but am familiar with it.

[Sir Comradical]

s/c+v...yeah son...

[StalinFanboy]

I shook Marx's hand once.

[Martin Blank]

No, it is quite interesting. I presume that this refers to the revelation referred to in the Stalin poll thread? I haven't read the book in question, so I'd be interested in what you've come up with.

It really doesn't have anything to do with Preobrazhensky or his theories; that was just the launching point for where I've went since then.

What I'm working on is the relationship between the revolutionizing of the capitalist mode of production, the development of all classes (especially the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie), how the methods of primitive accumulation (e.g., state intervention) are used by capital in this process, etc. It's also allowed me to work out a "life cycle" for all classes -- how the development of the mode of production from one revolution to another affects the composition and consciousness of classes.

I'm still working on all this, so this is the best I can do in terms of an explanation of what's happening.

[S.Artesian]

So what's the question? Besides the fact that "state intervention" is not the determining characteristic of primitive accumulation, what's perplexing you? Enclosure in England? The Junkers in Prussia?

The role of the Asiento in development of British capitalism?

[KC]

Yeah that's pretty vague Miles.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I have a little knowledge in this subject, or at least I used to (despite never having been a "Marxian economist")

Primitive accumulation and/or capitalism's beginnings have been an interest of mine, actually, so I'd be interested in this question.

[KC]

Nobody cares about you ES.

(obligatory Chit-Shat troll post)

[Martin Blank]

Yeah that's pretty vague Miles.

Like I said originally, it might be a couple days. I'm still working on fleshing this out enough to be clear -- to move beyond the pages of marginal notes and comments I've made in the last 24 hours.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Nobody cares about you ES.

(obligatory Chit-Shat troll post)

nobody likes me everybody hates me i guess i'll go eat worms

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

I'm awaiting cormade miles discovery with baited breath.

He's made notes guys, this is serious. Could this be the next advancement of marxian economics?

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

also i'm well versed in the marxian tradition, *****es dont know bout my mcm money makin
hola back ill answer your question

[Martin Blank]

OK, so here's an initial question that has stemmed from the discussion on my end (among WPA members). I figure it's a good place to start:


One of these things is the issue of productive labor vs. intellectual labor, and the impact that this has on the economy in terms of inflation, etc. It creates an artificial division in the working class because productive labor grows in productivity, where intellectual labor does not. This causes a strange difference in the ability of the bourgeoisie to increase exploitation in the different sectors of the working class.

The questions here, as I see it, are: How is this difference in ability resolved by the bourgeoisie in an economy where "intellectual capital" (for lack of a better term ... yet) and intellectual labor are growing? What is the impact on the petty bourgeoisie and proletariat generally? What is the specific impact on those sections of the petty bourgeoisie seeking to develop "intellectual capital" into a dominating form of capital?

I'm still having to re-read Marx's Theories of Surplus Value to see if he talks specifically about this in there. Perhaps someone can beat me to that.

[S.Artesian]

I don't think there's much in TSV about that-- at least not in parts 1 and 2 that I recall. The unpublished economic manuscripts [vols 33-34, and 30] might have something on it, but I don't recall Marx delving into intellectual labor in great detail.

Marx does define productive labor as labor that increases the wealth of capitalists, that yields a surplus value, and as such, once the intellectual labor is involved in a commercial relationship, intellectual labor is productive labor. I think Marx actually uses the example of a violinist "kept" as a [court?] musician, and the same violinist performing, in an orchestra, or solo, for impresario making money off the concert performance. In the former, the labor is not productive; in the latter it is productive labor.

Look for example at the whole history of the biotech field. Look at Amgen--it's blockbuster drug and still a pillar of its earnings is Epogen, a formulation of erythropoietin.

The initial research was done at the University of Chicago's Argonne Cancer Research Hospital in the 60s and 70s by Dr. Eugene Goldwasser [just died last week]. He organized the research, conducted the experiments, isolated the substance, wrote the papers-- never patented the compound. How do I know all this? I know all this because I was a lab asst. in his lab during my summers in high school.

Now all that intellectual labor by Goldwasser and his team did not amount to productive labor, other than the fact that it got a lot of government grants, brought the UC ACRH some renown, and introduced me to several great looking female lab assts working on other projects.

Amgen comes along-- develops a way to have bacteria express massive amounts of EPO, patents the process and the product and the rest turns into a story of stock options, patent lawsuits, and, pharmaceutical reps.

What part of this differs, in essence, from the design and construction of the first steam engines? Arkwright's water frame? etc. etc.? Not much that I can see.

What do you mean when you say intellectual labor does not grow in productivity? Right, the violinist cannot play the violin "faster" to reproduce the value of her portion of the concert proceeds, but is that an issue.

Certainly the products of intellectual labor can increase productivity for all-- including those who engage in intellectual and physical labor, like architects, biochemists, statisticians, public health officials, etc. etc.

All throughout capitalist history, uneven rates of capital application, of capital intensity, of labor exploitation have been the normal mode of capital accumulation. These disproportions all get worked out in the markets, more or less, more and less, better and worse. What's so different about the results of intellectual labor and rates of exploitation?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Marx does define productive labor as labor that increases the wealth of capitalists, that yields a surplus value, and as such, once the intellectual labor is involved in a commercial relationship, intellectual labor is productive labor. I think Marx actually uses the example of a violinist "kept" as a [court?] musician, and the same violinist performing, in an orchestra, or solo, for impresario making money off the concert performance. In the former, the labor is not productive; in the latter it is productive labor.

"A schoolmaster who educates others is not a productive worker. But a schoolmaster who is engaged as a wage laborer in an institution along with others, in order through his labor to valorize the money of the entrepreneur of the knowledge-mongering institution, is a productive worker."

"A singer who sings like a bird is an unproductive worker. If she sells her singing for money, she is to that extent a wage laborer or a commodity dealer. But the same singer, when engaged by an entrepreneur who has her sing in order to make money, is a productive worker, for she directly produces capital. "

"A singer who sings like a bird is an unproductive worker, to the extent that she sells her song for money she is a wage-earner and a merchant. But this very singer becomes a productive worker, when she is engaged by a contractor to sing and make money, since she directly produces capital."

?

[ZeroNowhere]

It is probably worth noting that, as fields using skilled labour are generally more limited in 'labour pool', they would probably be somewhat vulnerable to over-accumulation. If one is referring to R&D and such, then this would probably remove a significant amount of the working class from the reserve army for the purpose of increasing productivity and, ultimately, decreasing the profit rate.

On the other hand, productivity increases relative surplus-value, and this would seem to apply as much to 'intellectual labour' as any other form of labour. I'll hold off further comment until I see where this is going.

[S.Artesian]

On the other hand, productivity increases relative surplus-value, and this would seem to apply as much to 'intellectual labour' as any other form of labour. I'll hold off further comment until I see where this is going.

My sentiments exactly: where is this going? While I think it is interesting explore this, I don't see a problem where Miles says there is a problem.