Introduction

For 'productive' and 'unproductive' labour to be a realistic category it has to be defined fairly narrowly. Part of the problem is the attempt to expand the concept to correspond with the composition of the workforce which is far more differentiated now than when Marx was writing. In particular secondary production, that production which is, in the final analysis, dependant for its very existence on initial production has massively expanded.

If the concept of productive and unproductive labour is used precisely it indicates the vast amount of labour in the industrialised societies which is unproductive. Whereas in Marx's time production was roughly a pyramidal shape with productive labour at the base and unproductive labour at the apex the positions have now been reversed.

How can so many unproductive labourers be supported by so few productive labourers? On a purely internal analysis it cannot be and this presents a real problem of political correctness for the British left.

Strategically Productive Labour

Is carried out within the arena of initial social production. It is labour exchanged with capital which directly creates new surplus value.

Strategically Unproductive Labour

This is labour which is essential for new surplus value to be realized but does not create it. So whereas 'Productive and Unproductive Labour', page one, part one, says:

". . .in car production the workers actually engaged on the production line together with those maintaining and repairing the production machinery and those directly organising the production line workers are productive labourers."

In my view only the workers "actually engaged on the production line" are productive workers: the rest may play a vital role in enabling the process of production to carry on and new surplus value to be created, but they are not productive workers as such. They help new surplus value to be realized but in what way does this make them radically different from administrative workers? The only difference appears to be that they are more immediately imminent to the process of production.

An engineering factory may be absolutely dependent on its toolmakers but that does not mean that they are productive labourers. They are essential to the realization of new surplus value, they make the tools which are necessary in this case to create new surplus value, but they do not directly create it. (*)

Logically, I cannot agree with Marx that transportation is strategically productive work. It is vital for surplus value to be realized but it is not itself productive labour. Whether transportation is strategically or specifically unproductive labour depends on what is being carried.

This is labour which is internally productive to an enterprise but which does not produce new surplus value. A retail assistant in a record shop for instance, is internally productive in relation to that shop, but the work creates no new surplus value precisely because the interactions are taking place within the realm of exchange rather than production. Rather, the actually existing surplus value is redistributed within the individual enterprise. This is characteristic of secondary production.

This is labour which may be essential for specifically productive labour to occur: the order administrator in the record shop for example.

Surplus Value

There are two types of surplus value. New surplus value which, as the name suggests, is the creation of surplus value which never existed before. This can only be produced by productive workers in initial production.

Redistributed surplus value. This is the reconfiguration of actually existing surplus value. In other words, it is reliant on new surplus value. Redistributed surplus value, obviously, cannot exist without new surplus value which it is but at an abstract level of mediation.

Exploitation

Only a relatively small, though by no means insignificant, group of workers are now subject to exploitation in Marx's strict economic sense: ie, they have surplus value extracted from them. In my terms they are strategically productive labour who produce new surplus value.

'Productive and Unproductive Labour' argues that given no change in the forces of production the capitalist could not expand production without consequently expanding the amount of productive labourers. (Because surplus value, new or redistributed, can only be extracted from human labour power.) On the other hand, "employing more office staff would simply increase costs without at the same time increasing revenue." This is an important distinction which allows one to differentiate out productive from unproductive workers. It can be adapted to apply to both categories of unproductive workers. It may also very well be the case that the wages of unproductive workers should be regarded as constant capital.

Commercial and Banking

In my schema the great majority of employees in the commercial and banking sectors would be either specifically productive workers or specifically unproductive workers. In the state sector they would almost invariably be specifically unproductive workers. As 'Productive and Unproductive Labour' suggests, (p.4) the argument that some state employees are productive workers is incorrect. The work of milk delivery may have a "direct impact" on a productive worker but this does not make the milko a productive worker.

Political Conclusions

Does the fact that most workers are not exploited in the classic meaning of the term mean that they can be written off in terms of any potential for social change? I do not think so. In terms of work organisation we know that the conditions of specifically productive labour is often worse than that of strategically productive labour. Long hours, low status and low pay are absolutely endemic across retail, service, and leisure industries. Increasingly unproductive workers, both types, relative privileges are attacked. Whilst the social relationship to the production process is different increasingly the organisation of work is becoming similar. In particular control and surveillance of administrative workers due to computerisation has increased exponentially over the last decade. Work which formerly had a high degree of autonomy, eg. secretary can now be run on Taylorist lines. (See also 'Productive and Unproductive Labour', page 3).

Having said all this it may be that the debate about productive and unproductive labour has, at least partially, been overtaken by events.

It would be remiss not to note that many of the major struggles against capitalism at the moment are being carried out by non-workers. Indeed, participation in Newbury or the New Age movement is a full-time commitment which precludes working and explicitly recognises an opposition to capitalism which is more than a purely ideological and verbal one. This makes them radically different from industrial disputes which are essentially short term, (the miners strike was very exceptional), and where the whole emphasis is 'getting back to normal' as quickly as possible.

At the February 25th meeting of Leicester Secular Society the A.L.F. spokesman very eloquently noted that via imprisonment and constant harassment the state marginalises serious protesters, ie., it will not allow them to remain in the category of any type of worker. The A.L.F. are very clear that the major animal abusers are also the people who hold class power.

The left needs to decide whether to continue supporting people who are not in struggle; like the trade unions and Labour party, or whether to support people who are opposing capitalism in a determined, consistent innovative and often very courageous manner.

• To refer to a previous debate on skilled workers wages. In this particular case it must be the command over the production process which the toolmaker can exert and their relative scarcity internal to the firm which enables them to claim higher wages and status. This is not unrelated to the fact that they are not productive workers: ie, they are neither a worker nor yet management.

Ted Talbot.

__