Marx on the production and non-production work (second part) | Workers fight
Why we dedicated a portion of the text to what Marx called unproductive work? After all, it is logical that the non-production work is simply chafer grubs anything that is not productive work, or that it is the work that does not produce surplus value and equity. The point is that we are passing through Marx's texts, and then the texts of his critics, had the opportunity to make sure his claims chafer grubs so massacred and so "upgraded" to quote some or Marx the man who is familiar with the original does not recognize . Thus, here we're blowing chafer grubs and cold, and in each case the definition of non-enterprise work performed chafer grubs and listed his examples. Then we show that the analysis of these categories does the analysis of the same thing, but when viewed from different perspectives.
We have already mentioned a key feature chafer grubs of the non-enterprise work; it does not create surplus value. This then implies that the money deposited by non fertilizes, is not converted into equity. On the contrary, the money is classified as advanced, but as spent. So, the money was released to the unproductive work - this is money spent and money spent unproductively. The person who owns the money and buys unproductive chafer grubs work might be, or certainly get the services you want, but in monetary terms impoverish [i]. Its all smaller sum of money is in the form of ordinary means of transport (which is converted into usable value) in order to get one's work. In other words, money is being spent in the form of income. There's a big difference whether the work is expressed in the form of goods and buys such as cigars or is it a living work of his product, cigar, then consumed. [Ii]
Now we see how it gets from the perspective of capital and its personifications, capitalists. Now let's see what it looks like from the perspective of workers. For non-enterprise workers is a characteristic that it does not produce the goods, but only use value. When we hired the workers that we make a cigar that we consume, then we do it produced usable value, not goods. In addition to use for the goods still constitute the value that occurs in the form of exchange value, which in turn is realized only in the market, ie. Compared to some other commodities (Marx, 1979: 300, 305). The cigar itself and intended for human consumption chafer grubs and not for sale-it's not a commodity. Accordingly, non-production worker receives goods from the customer (goods that can be exchanged chafer grubs for other goods; therefore money), but this comes useful.
As far as production workers, chafer grubs his position is just the opposite equity. Everything stems from the fact that the circulation of money its owners, employees, such that on that money being spent on other goods but for consumption. This part has the overall circulation consisting of exchange of goods, in the form of labor for money and then the money is exchanged chafer grubs for goods held workers alive. With the capital's different, he buys goods with money, manpower, which produces new goods with excess values embedded in it and making more money selling their property. In other words, chafer grubs the tendency is that workers can never be rich because their money is spent unproductively [iii]. He lowers his money from day to day because buying other goods which in turn does not have that capability of producing surplus value. On the other hand, the capitalist fertilizes their money, according to which the activity of workers indirectly productive because it, keeping it alive, seems capable and ready for further production of surplus value. Therefore, Marx concludes that being a productive worker - trouble. It produces other people's wealth and "just chafer grubs as such a tool for the production of another's wealth, its existence makes sense" (Marx, 1969: 158).
If we look at the whole production and non-production work, it is one and the same work appears as productive as unproductive. Here are some examples: cooks and waiters in a hotel productive workers if they produce (directly or indirectly) any surplus or converted money hotel owners in the capital. But these same workers are unproductive when compared to the consumer because this way they spend their income; they are to him as "servants" (ibid: 103). So cook hotel owner produces goods and thus (in the form of proof point there, Marx is abstracted from the profits, so we will be) the owner is compensated fund from which he continues to pay off. By the way, this is yet another proof that the worker himself chafer grubs makes his own salary and that actually lend its capitalists. But if the consumer buys the work of the same cooks to prepare a meal for the same food as in the first example, then it is unproductive worker and does not produce the goods because he spends it (used) do not like work at all, but as a very concrete work. For those who may still not see a major difference chafer grubs between chafer grubs the exchange kuharičinog work for money hotel owners and consumers, it is that the consumer her work does not reimburse his money nor increases. That is why Marx says that his "lunch
Why we dedicated a portion of the text to what Marx called unproductive work? After all, it is logical that the non-production work is simply chafer grubs anything that is not productive work, or that it is the work that does not produce surplus value and equity. The point is that we are passing through Marx's texts, and then the texts of his critics, had the opportunity to make sure his claims chafer grubs so massacred and so "upgraded" to quote some or Marx the man who is familiar with the original does not recognize . Thus, here we're blowing chafer grubs and cold, and in each case the definition of non-enterprise work performed chafer grubs and listed his examples. Then we show that the analysis of these categories does the analysis of the same thing, but when viewed from different perspectives.
We have already mentioned a key feature chafer grubs of the non-enterprise work; it does not create surplus value. This then implies that the money deposited by non fertilizes, is not converted into equity. On the contrary, the money is classified as advanced, but as spent. So, the money was released to the unproductive work - this is money spent and money spent unproductively. The person who owns the money and buys unproductive chafer grubs work might be, or certainly get the services you want, but in monetary terms impoverish [i]. Its all smaller sum of money is in the form of ordinary means of transport (which is converted into usable value) in order to get one's work. In other words, money is being spent in the form of income. There's a big difference whether the work is expressed in the form of goods and buys such as cigars or is it a living work of his product, cigar, then consumed. [Ii]
Now we see how it gets from the perspective of capital and its personifications, capitalists. Now let's see what it looks like from the perspective of workers. For non-enterprise workers is a characteristic that it does not produce the goods, but only use value. When we hired the workers that we make a cigar that we consume, then we do it produced usable value, not goods. In addition to use for the goods still constitute the value that occurs in the form of exchange value, which in turn is realized only in the market, ie. Compared to some other commodities (Marx, 1979: 300, 305). The cigar itself and intended for human consumption chafer grubs and not for sale-it's not a commodity. Accordingly, non-production worker receives goods from the customer (goods that can be exchanged chafer grubs for other goods; therefore money), but this comes useful.
As far as production workers, chafer grubs his position is just the opposite equity. Everything stems from the fact that the circulation of money its owners, employees, such that on that money being spent on other goods but for consumption. This part has the overall circulation consisting of exchange of goods, in the form of labor for money and then the money is exchanged chafer grubs for goods held workers alive. With the capital's different, he buys goods with money, manpower, which produces new goods with excess values embedded in it and making more money selling their property. In other words, chafer grubs the tendency is that workers can never be rich because their money is spent unproductively [iii]. He lowers his money from day to day because buying other goods which in turn does not have that capability of producing surplus value. On the other hand, the capitalist fertilizes their money, according to which the activity of workers indirectly productive because it, keeping it alive, seems capable and ready for further production of surplus value. Therefore, Marx concludes that being a productive worker - trouble. It produces other people's wealth and "just chafer grubs as such a tool for the production of another's wealth, its existence makes sense" (Marx, 1969: 158).
If we look at the whole production and non-production work, it is one and the same work appears as productive as unproductive. Here are some examples: cooks and waiters in a hotel productive workers if they produce (directly or indirectly) any surplus or converted money hotel owners in the capital. But these same workers are unproductive when compared to the consumer because this way they spend their income; they are to him as "servants" (ibid: 103). So cook hotel owner produces goods and thus (in the form of proof point there, Marx is abstracted from the profits, so we will be) the owner is compensated fund from which he continues to pay off. By the way, this is yet another proof that the worker himself chafer grubs makes his own salary and that actually lend its capitalists. But if the consumer buys the work of the same cooks to prepare a meal for the same food as in the first example, then it is unproductive worker and does not produce the goods because he spends it (used) do not like work at all, but as a very concrete work. For those who may still not see a major difference chafer grubs between chafer grubs the exchange kuharičinog work for money hotel owners and consumers, it is that the consumer her work does not reimburse his money nor increases. That is why Marx says that his "lunch
No comments:
Post a Comment