We keep getting the same questions over and over again on unproductive labor. At some point we are going to achieve practical guidelines that people feel they can follow to get this question right. We have made much progress in our journey to understand Marx, but maybe we can make some more.

Difficulties reading and digesting Marx

First we want to understand the difficulties in reading Marx.

1. Marx had a long concentration span. What he wrote in the "Grundrisse" and "Theories of Surplus Value" on unproductive labor was often in reaction to what others were saying. He restates what others are saying and then often much later gets back to what he thinks. He tries to humor what others are saying, even if only at the margin and in a very specific context.

2. At the margin, Marx tried to use anything on the subject of unproductive labor as something that could potentially illustrate a principle. We have to understand that if Marx uses an example, it does not mean he believes that example is concretely the same for all times and places. We should read Marx for illustrations of principles. We should not pretend that everything Marx saw in his day is the same today. Even what Marx saw in his day, he used to illustrate principles. Conditions change but methods and some theoretical principles may be the same.

3. Marx did respect some bourgeois academics more than others. On unproductive labor, he made it clear he'd rather stick with Adam Smith than venture into the territory of many other writers on the subject. So it's all relative. Adam Smith looks like gold on the topic when there is so much dreck. Obviously that can be confusing to the proletarian used to thinking of Adam Smith as bourgeois theorist of bourgeois theorists.

4. Marx was often sardonic.

Guidelines

1. Marx's theory of surplus-value and productive labor is meant to be specific to capitalism and its economic relations. If you are talking about something that was done under feudalism or slavery by ordinary people, not the proto-bourgeoisie, then that's a good guideline that you are not talking about productive labor.

Example--there were priests, army and security guards under feudalism too. The economic relations in hiring for these people did not change. Many professions did not come under new business dynamics. So ask yourself: "did this profession or business work this way under slavery and feudalism too?" If so, it's not productive labor.

Related to this, if the work done is not a commodity the way labor products are under capitalism, then the work is not productive labor. M-C....C'-M' is distinctive to capitalism and we can learn about that from reading Marx's Capital or the Fundamentals of Political Economy published in Shanghai under Mao. The process M-C....C'-M' does not characterize other non-capitalist time periods. If "profit" refers to this formula then "making a profit" characterizes capitalism, but most people use the word "profit" more loosely. "Profit" is a necessary but not sufficient condition for existence of productive labor.

2. Marx's firmest guideline on unproductive versus productive labor once we have situated ourselves in capitalism is the distinction between capital and revenue. To this day, business school students learn the difference between capital (stock) and revenue (flow).

There are countless things that a capitalist does in business. Ordinarily, whatever a capitalist or any rich persyn does comes from revenue. To employ a stock of wealth, something special has to come up for the capitalist. He has to see a special business opportunity to make him put a stock of wealth at risk instead of just consuming this or that out of revenue.

If there is NO or LITTLE capital at risk, there is no productive labor hiring--even if someone is making a "profit." So ask yourself: "is there capital at risk, why or why not?"

3. If you live in an imperialist country, and you are looking at a business without monopolies, chances are good you have found a service-sector hospitable to the petty-bourgeoisie and there is no productive labor going on. Where there is productive labor typical of capitalism going on, as Lenin pointed out, monopolies tend to form. If not, you are looking at something that is not really most characteristic of capitalism but which can go grow because of parasitism generated by imperialism. So for example, priests can be hired more and better than before, because of the general parasitism of the society, not because there is some new way of passing the plate. Ask yourself: "are monopolies formed or forming in this business or profession? How did this business escape monopoly ownership?"

Discussion of guidelines with examples

Thieves

Marx ridiculed the idea that thieves make profit and therefore are productive laborers. "Profit" is a good first approximation "from the point of view of the capitalist," but it is not what makes someone a "productive laborer" according to Marx. Thieves existed under feudalism to enrich themselves. Nothing is new about them. We can dismiss them under rule number one as unproductive sector.

Pizza

As of yet, we have no transporter beams like in "Star Trek." So, China is not able to manufacture our pizzas for us and transport them to us fresh and hot. There are certain businesses that are thus naturally protected from competition.

Could China manufacture pizzas? Of course. Would that possibly be productive labor? Yes. Why does it not happen? The reason it does not happen has to do with the peculiar character of service.

We want our pizzas fresh and hot. Dominoes Pizza or Pizza Hut are in fact attempting to monopolize the pizza business. However, there are still countless independent pizza outlets. The reason is that putting capital at risk in the pizza business only goes so far in establishing dominance in the business. Pizza is an in-between thing--monopolies are trying to take hold but have thus far gotten only so far. Pizza chains can work out good deals on purchase of cheese and sauce. They can also manufacture dough. These areas of the business are subject to productive labor considerations. Other areas are not so subject to productive labor considerations. Delivery for example--investing capital is not usually going to make delivery faster. Joe Independent can send someone on a bike or in a car and so can Dominoes. Now, IF Dominoes Pizza could afford to install transporter beams and independent pizza owners could not afford it, because it required large amounts of capital to install advanced transport mechanisms, then we might see that the independent pizza business disappear. That would be an example where productive labor leads to monopoly.

On the other hand, Joe Independent pizza-maker might be an astute business persyn and might say, "OK, I cannot compete with the monopolies in this area and that area. However, pizza transport is not my 'core' business. Making the tastiest recipe in the neighborhood is." So then Joe might form an alliance with a transport company which does own the expensive transporter beam equipment. Joe may pay for the use of that equipment out of revenue and if his recipe is a hit, he may beat the monopoly pizza-companies in his neighborhood. So the whole topic has to do with the question: "what is the real nature of the pizza business? What matters?"

There is some productive labor in the pizza business. It has an in-between character. The petty-bourgeoisie is still holding out fine though, without productive labor under its control in the pizza business.

Hair cuts and shoe shines

Hair cuts and shoe shines are not commodities. People paid for them under feudalism too, the same way.

There is no monopoly hair-cut company. Why? Because it does not pay. In the last 40 years, the most significant change in the business may have been the improvement of hair dryers. However, hair dryers have improved so that less capital is involved in barbershops than before. Hair dryers used to be a rare kind of equipment that people would not own at home.

Capitalists have found no way to invest capital and improve the basic experience in hair cutting. Someone raises a pair of scissors or a shaving blade and that is how it has been for hundreds of years.

Attempts at monopolizing barber shops are centered on using them as outlets for hair product sales on the side--shampoo etc. In all businesses, there is also the idea of monopolizing the advertising connected, but that leads to the newspaper, radio and tv business, another business entirely. So again, there is a question as with pizza, "what is the business here?" We are answering the original question, not making up new ones, so we are not going to talk about the advertising or hair color products business.

Likewise with shoe shines. No capitalist has invented a machine in which say 200 gentlemen step up and simultaneously have their shoes shined. Shoe shining is still a service difficult to make into a commodity, something where stored capital can make a difference.

There is no investment opportunity for the capitalist; thus we can be sure there is no productive labor going on in barber shops and shoe shining.

Singers

Not all singers are the same. They have differing economic relations behind them. Today, the vast majority of professional singers are petty-bourgeoisie in the imperialist countries. Again, making a "profit" is not adequate. Doctors, lawyers--other typical members of the petty-bourgeoisie make "profit."

Were there musicians and singers under feudalism for wedding parties and the like and were they hired the same way? Yes. Rule number one eliminates most professional singers from being considered productive labor.

Is there really capital involved in playing/singing at the high school prom, the wedding or the bar --not enough that the petty-bourgeoisie is not in control.

What about the monopolies like Sony? That is a good question. Here we suspect if we scrutinize, maybe we will find some singers in productive labor.

But then we have to ask "what the hell business is SONY?" Who needed the idea of rock stars? Was it not the advertising business known as radio? Is the rock star productive labor, because capital goes into the rock star business? Would there be a rock star without radio or the like communications? So if not, "what is the real business here?" Advertising or music? If it is music, why does Britney Spears and the like have to be sexy?

This is an example where monopoly has developed to the point where it's obvious the rock star is a capitalist, not productive laborer. The pay of the rock star is in the means of production or access to them. Some of the kiss-ass parties are recruiting rock stars and baseball players and change their line to see them as "workers" "exploited" by "owners." This is a crock of shit on the question of appropriation of labor and not worth examining along these lines. There would be too much to sort out. If Lee Iacocca bangs on some hubcabs on some Chryslers, it does not illuminate much to say he is a productive laborer.

If a singer is in a niche that sells but not so well that it makes the singer a capitalist, then if that singer has capital invested in machinery and CDs (by someone), then that singer could be productive labor. Even in this case, MIM has considerable doubt, because the productive labor goes into manufacturing the CDs. What the singer does is the same as it has been under feudalism.

Ordinarily, the singer is a petty-bourgeois with his own means of production. That's why Marx raised the case of non-competition where it pays to hire singers not to sing. If such a situation arises, and putting more capital into hiring people not to sing works, then there is the appearance of productive labor in some regards, but it could also be just a matter of "one capitalist kills many," the capitalist swallowing up the petty-bourgeoisie.

Reminders as conclusions

1. Marx did not discuss "productive labor" as a lifestyle recommendation. He rather saw it as a "curse" to produce surplus-value for the capitalist.

2. Marx does not think at the individual level of the capitalist. Attempts to dumb down and pass off Marx that way are called "vulgar Marxism."

3. In the imperialist countries we can talk about monopoly capitalist companies that may illustrate the whole process of production from extraction of raw materials to sales. What matters then is the monopoly capitalists' overall profit or the class's overall profit.

4. We study productive and unproductive labor for a number of reasons.
a. The distinction helps us predict under what circumstances there will be a profit crisis and possibly a business cycle.
b. The distinction gives us yet another way to verify the class structure empirically.
c. The distinction helps us orient ourselves toward abolishing exploitation and helps with regard to problems to look out for.