Review of Radical Political

Economics http://rrp.sagepub.com/

Productive and Unproductive Labor and Marx's Theory of Class

Peter Meiksins
Review of Radical Political Economics 1981 13: 32
DOI: 10.1177/048661348101300304

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://rrp.sagepub.com/content/13/3/32

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Union for Radical Political Economics

Additional services and information for Review of Radical Political Economics can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://rrp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://rrp.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://rrp.sagepub.com/content/13/3/32.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Oct 1, 1981

What is This?

Downloaded from rrp.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on January 27, 2014
Productive and Unproductive
Labor and Marx’s Theory of
Class
Peter Meiksins

Abstract
This paper attempts to clarify some of the confusion been able to arrive at a consensus regarding how these
surrounding Marx’s discussion of productive and un- concepts should be used in analyzing contemporary
productive labor. It begins with a brief exposition of capitalist class structure. Nevertheless, the various
Marx’s definitions of these concepts and then moves to a authors who have attempted to use these concepts have
consideration of their more controversial aspects. Par- produced several important hypotheses that any Marxist
ticular attention is paid to the problem of service workers theory must address. Even if one disagrees with the con-
and commercial wage-labor, and Mandel’s and Poulant- clusions, or even the approach, of authors such as
zas’s writings on these subjects are reviewed and criticiz- Poulantzas, one must come to terms with Marx’s discus-
ed. Finally, an attempt is made to situate these concepts in sion of productive and unproductive labor.
Marx’s overall theoretical framework. It is argued that English-speaking readers of Marx have been for-
Marx never intended them to be used as the basis for class tunate in having at their disposal Ian Gough’s lucid and
analysis, and it is suggested that the crucial Marxist con- accurate exposition of Marx’s views on productive and
cept for such an analysis is exploitation. unproductive labor (Gough 1972). Yet, subsequent
writers have taken issue with Gough on a number of im-
The expansion of white collar work in the twentieth portant points of interpretation. In my view, they have
century has stimulated a renewed interest among Marxist tended to confuse Marx’s concepts and to weaken his
scholars in Marxist concepts of productive and unproduc- analysis. Therefore, it seems both useful and necessary to
tive labor.l Many Marxists have hoped that Marx’s long- go over this ground again, this time to confront explicitly
neglected discussion of these concepts would provide certain arguments which challenge important aspects of
them with analytical tools with which they could identify Gough’s interpretation. The first two sections of this
the class nature of white collar workers. For example, paper briefly recapitulate Marx’s definitions of productive
Nicos Poulantzas has claimed that the concepts of produc- and unproductive labor and provide a more detailed
tive and unproductive labor, as discussed by Marx, must analysis of the problem of services and of commercial
be regarded as essential components of a Marxist analysis wage-labor.
of social structure. (Poulantzas 19974:213). Many other In the third section, I will consider a problem that
(although by no means all) have expressed similar views. Gough dealt with only briefly and inconclusively - the
Indeed, several Marxists have accepted Poulantzas’ no- place of these concepts in Marx’s theoretical system. It will
tion that the distinction between productive and un- be my contention that certain Marxist scholars have not
productive labor represents, in effect, a class distinction2 considered this question and, in consequence, some have
However, there is very little agreement among these mistaken the distinction between productive and un-
authors. productive labor for a class distinction. Finally, in a brief
Marxist scholars do not agree as to what Marx meant conclusion, I will suggest an alternative method of
by productive and unproductive labor, nor have they employing Marx’s critique of political economy in an
32
Downloaded from rrp.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on January 27, 2014
analysis of contemporary capitalist class structure. The economy. We need not examine this debate in any detail;
concepts of productive and unproductive labor have a Marx had some choice words for these &dquo;gods of the lesser
place in such an analysis, but not the one attributed to tribes,&dquo; the upshot of which was that they were of no im-
them by authors such as Poulantzas. portance in the history of political economy (TSV
1:174-76).a Interestingly enough, Smith’s critics did not at-
CLASSICAL POLITICAL ECONOMY AND tempt to challenge the notion that productive labor was
PRODUCTIVE LABOR that which produced a surplus - indeed, they avoided this
Any discussion of Marx’s remarks on productive and aspect of the definition altogether. Rather, they attacked
unproductive labor must begin by situating them in the his view that productive labor must result in a material
context of classical political economy. As is by now well commodity. In doing so, they attempted to show how and
known, most of what Marx had to say about these con- why many of Smith’s &dquo;respectable&dquo; but &dquo;unproductive&dquo;
cepts took the form of a critical discussion of the theories workers were, in fact, eminently productive. This debate
of Adam Smith, the Physiocrats, and various lesser focused upon the nature and origins of wealth. Thus,
political economists. The question of the nature of pro- Smith argued that the nation’s wealth would be greatest if
ductive and unproductive labor was of extreme impor- a maximum of its resources were devoted to employing
tance to classical political economy, for, as Malthus noted productive laborers (as he defined them) while his op-
(Malthus 1936:34), it was closely related to the definition ponents sought to establish that various kinds of labor ex-
of wealth. Thus, an extensive debate arose over how, cluded from Smith’s definition could, directly or indirect-
precisely, these concepts were to be defined. This debate ly, enrich the nation. On this matter, Ricardo was in
focused largely on Adam Smith’s remarks in The Wealth Smith’s camp.
of Nations.
Smith borrowed from the Physiocrats their notion MARX’S DEFINITIONS
that productive labor is that which produces a surplus, What, then, was the nature of Marx’s critique of
but he rejected their exclusive emphasis on agriculture. Smith and classical political economy? Most of Marx’s
Smith defined productive labor as follows: remarks on productive and unproductive labor were brief
There is one sort of labour which adds to the and fragmentary (with the exception of the extended
value of the subject upon which it is bestowed: discussion in Theories of Surplus-Value). Nevertheless,
there is another which has no such effect. The we can present a consistent account of Marx’s views from
former, as it produces a value, may be called these fragments. Let us begin with the one finished work
productive; the latter, unproductive labour. in which Marx discussed this issue -volume 1 of Capital.
Thus the labour of a manufacturer adds,
generally, to the materials which he works (The following analysis deals only with the sphere of pro-
upon, that of his own maintenance, and of his duction. Circulation will be considered later in this
master’s profit. The labour of a menial ser-
article. )
vant, on the contrary, adds to the value of
At the beginning of Part III of volume 1, Marx made
nothing.
the following statement:
He continued: In the labour-process, therefore, man’s activi-
...the labour of the manufacturer fixes and ty, with the help of the instruments of labour,
realizes itself in some particular subject or ven- effects an alteration, designed from the com-
dible commodity, which lasts for some time at mencement, in the material worked upon. The
least after that labour is past .... The labour process disappears in the product; the latter is
of the menial servant, on the contrary, does a use-value. Nature’s material adapted by a
not fix or realize itself in any particular subject change of form to the wants of man. Labour
or vendible commodity. His services generally has incorporated itself with its subject: the
perish in the very instant of their performance, former is materialised, the latter transformed.
and seldom leave any trace or value behind That which in the labourer appeared as move-
them, for which an equal quantity of service ment, now appears in the product as a fixed
could afterwards be procured. (Smith quality without motion ...
1937:314-15). If we examine the whole process from the
Thus, the creation of additional value which takes the point of view of the result, the product, it is
form of a material commodity was Smith’s basic criterion plain that both the instruments and the subject
of labour are means of production, and that
for productive labor. In making this argument, he ex- the labour itself is productive labour. (Capital
plicitly classified such &dquo;respectable&dquo; orders as the 1:180-81).
sovereign, clergymen, physicians and lawyers as un- There is no mention of a surplus here, and no mention of
productive. (Smith 1937:315). the production of a commodity. It would seem, then, that
Smith’s definitions became the subject of a heated Marx defined productive labor in an entirely different
controversy among several of the’lesser lights&dquo; of political way than did Adam Smith. However, as Marx himself in-

33
Downloaded from rrp.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on January 27, 2014
dicated in a footnote to this passage, to define productive collective labourer, i.e., by a combination of
labor in this way is to define it from the standpoint of the workmen, each of whom takes only a part,
labor-process - it is not necessarily applicable to capitalist greater or less, in the manipulation of the sub-
ject of their labour. As the co-operative
production (Capital 1:181, note 2). In other words, this is character of the labour-process becomes more
the definition of productive labor in general, abstracted and more marked, so, as a necessary conse-
f rom the particular mode of production in which it oc- quence, does our notion of productive labour,
curs. Once the latter is taken into consideration, produc- and of its agent the productive labourer,
tive labor may be (and is) defined very differently. become extended. In order to labour produc-
Further on in volume 1 of Capital, and in virtually all tively, it is no longer necessary for you to do
manual work yourself; enough, if you are an
of his other statements on this subject, Marx defined pro- organ of the collective labourer and perform
ductive labor exclusively from the point of view of one of its subordinate functions. (Capital

capitalist production: 1:508-9).

That labourer alone is productive, who pro- As the process of capitalist production grows and
duces surplus-value for the capitalist, and thus becomes more complex, a highly developed division of
works for the self-expansion of capital. If we
labor, with many workers performing different jobs,
may take an example from outside the sphere becomes necessary to the production of a single commodi-
of production of material objects, a
schoolmaster is a productive labourer when, ty. Thus, for example, there are unskilled workmen who
in addition to belabouring the heads of his do not directly work up raw materials, overseers who
scholars, he works like a horse to enrich the supervise the working up of raw materials, engineers who
school proprietor. That the latter has laid out work mostly with their brains, etc. These workers pro-
his capital in a teaching factory, instead of a
sausage factory, does not alter the relation.
duce different amounts of value and no single worker pro-
Hence the notion of a productive worker im- duces a finished commodity. But the totality of these
plies not merely a relation between work and workers, the collective laborer, does produce a commodi-
useful effect, between labour and product of ty (TSV 1:411; Results 134-35). Consequently, the
labour, but also a specific, social relation of laborer, the technician, even the overseer can be con-
production, a relation that has sprung up sidered productive, despite the fact that they produce
historically and stamps the labourer as the
direct means of creating surplus-value nothing at all as individuals. To sum up, then: Marx
(Capital 1:509).~3 argued that, for capitalist production, productive labor is
Clearly, this definition differs radically from the defini- that which individually or collectively produces surplus-
tion of productive labor in general. It is no longer a ques- value, and thereby produces capital.s5
tion of the simple expenditure of labor in a labor-process. In contrast to this, Marx defined unproductive labor,
Nor, for that matter, did Marx mean to imply that pro- from the capitalist point of view, as labor which ex-
ductive labor is only that which results in a socially useful changes with revenue. (TSV 1:157). He elaborated on
(i.e., non-wasteful) effect-he explicitly stated elsewhere what he meant by this in Theories of Surplus-Value:
that the production of the most futile commodity may be What is the special character of this exchange?
productive from the point of view of capital (TSV 1:158, How is it different from the exchange of
401).4 Rather, since the production of surplus-value is the money for productive labour? On the one
basis of capitalist production, only that labor which pro- hand, in that the money is spent as money, as
the independent form of exchange-value,
duces surplus-value can be regarded as productive from which is to be transformed into a use-value,
the point of view of that mode of production. In effect, into means of subsistence, into an object for
then, Marx found Smith’s argument, that the production personal consumption. The money therefore
of a surplus is the defining characteristic of productive does not become capital, but on the contrary,
it loses its existence as exchange-value in order
labor, to be essentially correct from the point of view of to be consumed and expended as use-value.
capital (TSV 1:152; Grundrisse 273). (I leave aside, for the (TSV 1:403).
moment, the question of the materiality of the product of Unproductive labor, then, is labor which is consumed not
productive labor.) in order to produce surplus-value, but simply in order to
For capital, productive labor is not conducted simply satisfy a concrete need-e.g., the need for a pair of
by isolated individuals. Marx remarked: trousers, in the case of the employment of a private tailor.
As in the natural body head and hand wait This is a completely different relationship than that bet-
upon each other, so the labour-process unites ween capital and productive labor. As Marx observed,
the labour of the hand with that of the head.
Later on they part company and even become this exchange constitutes the cycle C-M-C, not M-C-M; it
deadly foes. The product ceases to be the is not the expenditure of money to produce more money.
direct product of the individual, and becomes (Results 135-36).
a social product, produced in common by a This, of course, tells us absolutely nothing about the
34
Downloaded from rrp.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on January 27, 2014
concrete content of unproductive labor. Indeed, Marx must express itself in a material product as &dquo;crude&dquo;
repeatedly argued that the same labor may be either pro- (perhaps in the sense that it is not capitalist) and went on
ductive or unproductive, depending upon the manner in to argue that actors, who produce no material commodi-
which it is employed. His labor has been purchased by the ty, are in fact productive workers insofar as they enrich
proprietor in order that he may produce a commodity (a their employers. (Grundrisse 328-29). Here, as in a
meal) which then is sold to the consumer at a profit. In number of other passages, Marx clearly stated that the
other words, he produces surplus-value for his employer. production of a material product is irrelevant to the
On the other hand, it a capitalist pays the cook to prepare capitalist definition of productive labor.7 Thus, there
a meal for him, he does not pay him in order to ac- would appear to be no reason to doubt that he felt that
cumulate capital, but solely for the enjoyment of the pro- labor in the sphere of non-material production could be
duct of his labor. Here the cook is paid from revenue the productive.
capitalist obtained elsewhere and which is neither How, then, do Poulantzas and Mandel arrive at the
reproduced nor augmented through his production of a opposite conclusion? Poulantzas contends that service
meal (TSV 1:165). The actual labor performed is identical workers are unproductive because they &dquo;are directly con-
in each case; but the relationship within which it occurs is sumed as use-values and are not exchanged against capital
quite different. but rather against revenue or income.&dquo; (Poulantzas
1974:216). It is, of course, true that, from the point of
THE PROBLEM OF SERVICES view of the consumer of a service, the labor he purchases
These, then, are Marx’s basic definitions of produc- is notproductive - no surplus-value can be produced in
tive and unproductive labor from the point of view of such relationship. However, what of the case of a
a

capitalist production. Inasmuch as they are fairly clear capitalistically-organized service enterprise in which a
and straightforward, there has been little disagreement capitalist employs wage-labor to perform services for
over what they mean. However, the consensus ends once others? Is it not true that, from the point of view of this
we get beyond basic definitions. In particular, Marxists capitalist, his employees are productive laborers? It seems
have been in disagreement over the question of whether to me that this is the sense of the example of the actors
labor which does not result in material commodity can already mentioned. Indeed, Marx quite clearly
ever be productive. Nicos Poulantzas, for one, seems to acknowledged the possibility of capitalist organization in
think it cannot (Poulantzas 1974:216-19). In this, he is in the sphere of non-material production in a section of
agreement with as non-structuralist a Marxist as Ernest Theories of Surplus-Value entitled &dquo;Manifestations of
Mandel (1978a:404-5). On the other hand, Erik Olin Capitalism in the Sphere of Immaterial Production&dquo; (TSV
Wright (1978:46) as well as a variety of French commen- 1:410-11). It is true that he argued that the applicability of
tators (Bidet 1976:54-55; Berthoud 1974:56; Colliot- capitalism to this sphere is extremely limited; but, this is
Thelene 1976:40), argue that such labor can lead to the quite different from the argument, which Poulantzas ap-
production of surplus-value. This confusion and disagree- pears to make, that any labor that does not result in a
ment are not accidental, as Marx’s remarks on this subject material product is unproductive by definition.88
often seem contradictory. However, I do think it is possi- Mandel’s argument is basically similar. Thus, in Late
ble to resolve the question in a way that is consistent with Capitalism, he argues that any labor that does not pro-
Marx’s basic definitions of productive and unproductive duce a material commodity cannot be productive. But, he
labor from the point of view of capital. goes further and argues that even capitalistically-
In order to do this, we need to look more closely at organized service enterprises do not employ productive
Marx’s critique of Adam Smith. As will be recalled, Smith labor:
had two criteria for defining productive labor - the pro- Even in the Theories of Surplus-Value Marx
duction of a surplus and the creation of a material com- distinguished within the transport industry
between the expedition of people - which in-
modity. Marx regarded these as two separate and incom- volves the unproductive exchange between a
patible definitions which were confounded in Smith’s personal service and revenue - and the expedi-
theory (TSV 1:137). As we have seen, Marx’s analysis of tion of goods, which increases their exchange-
productive labor is quite compatible with Smith’s first value and is therefore productive. If even
criterion, the production of a surplus. However, Marx capitalistically organized traffic in human
found the second criterion unacceptable. He argued that, transport is unproductive, then presumably
capitalistically organized laundries, concerts,
in using it, Smith abandoned his definition of productive circuses, medical and legal assistance societies
labor by social form; that is, he no longer defined it in are even less so. (Mandel 1978a:404-5).
relation to the specifically capitalist mode of production, Once again, it seems to me that Mandel, like
as he did in the &dquo;first definition.&dquo; (TSV 1:162).6 Indeed, in Poulantzas, has confused the relation between the con-
the Grundrisse, he described the view that surplus-value sumer and the service he consumes with that between the

35
Downloaded from rrp.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on January 27, 2014
capitalist and the service worker he employs. In the curs would appear to indicate that Mandel’s interpretation
passage he cites regarding transport, the transport of peo- is incorrect. Thus, Marx referred to Smith’s second defini-
ple was indeed described as a service the consumption of tion (the materiality of the product) as &dquo;an aberration&dquo;; he
which produces no surplus-value. However, Marx went reiterated that the external form of the product does not
on to say that this relation between buyer and seller has determine whether the labor that produces it is productive
nothing to do with the relation between productive labor or unproductive; he argued that the production of ser-
and capital. (TSV 1:412). It seems to me that this quite vices can be subsumed under capital; and he accused
clearly suggests that the relation between capitalists and Smith of falling back into a Mercantilist definition of
workers in the sphere of transport of people is in fact one wealth by introducing the question of the materiality of
between capital and productive labor. This conclusion is the product (TSV 1:162, 165-7, 173-74). Moreover, im-
borne out by a passage in volume 2 of Capital, where mediately after the passage in question, Marx remarked
Marx once again discussed transport. In this passage, that the definition of productive labor as that which pro-
Marx quite clearly stated that laborers employed by duces material &dquo;commodities&dquo; is more elementary than
capital in the sphere of transport can, and do, produce that which defines it as labor which produces capital. He
surplus-value, irrespective of whether they transport peo- goes on to note that Smith’s second definition gives rise to
ple or commodities (Capital 2:54-55). Mandel’s case, &dquo;contradictions and inconsistencies&dquo; which have provided
therefore, is not convincing - this example cannot be used easy prey for his opponents (TSV 1:173). All in all, then,
to support his argument that productive labor must pro- Marx’s argument seems to be that the materiality of the
duce a material commodity.99 product is irrelevant to the definition of productive labor.
More recently, Mandel has cited another passage Perhaps the passage Mandel cites does in fact represent
from Marx in support of his argument. Thus, he claims Marx’s exposition of Smith’s view (although this remains
that Marx contradicts himself in Theories of Surplus- unclear). In any case, the over-all argument in this section
Value with regard to the question whether actors in the of Theories of Surplus-Value contradicts Mandel’s inter-
employ of a capitalist entrepreneur are productive. We pretation of Marx’s views.
have already discussed a passage in which Marx claimed I do not mean to suggest that Marx was entirely con-
that they are; Mandel has found a second one in which sistent on this issue. On the contrary, there are a number
Marx appears to come to the opposite conclusion: of passages in various works which are extremely am-
As for labours which are productive for their biguous and could be construed as saying the opposite of
purchaser or employer himself - as for exam- what I have argued here. (Results 136-38). However, it
ple the actor’s labour for the theatrical en- does seem to me that Marx’s critique of Smith’s second
trepreneur - the fact that their purchaser can- definition definitely indicates that the materiality of the
not sell them to the public in the form of com-
modities but only in the form of the action product is irrelevant to the definition of productive labor
itself would show that they are unproductive for capital. He was careful to point out that to use this
labourers. (TSV 1:172). criterion is to abandon a specifically capitalist definition
Mandel concludes that the apparent contradiction here is of productive labor. Furthermore, Marx acknowledged
evidence of confusion in Marx’s discussion, in Theories of the possibility of capitalist production in the immaterial
Surplus-Value, of the definition of productive labor. He sphere, and gave a number of examples. In view of this
goes on to argue that Marx refined this definition in later evidence, it seems to me that the only conclusion consis-
works in such a way as to classify all labor that does not tent with Marx’s &dquo;capitalist&dquo; definitions of productive and
produce a material commodity as unproductive (Mandel unproductive labor is that labor in this sphere can be pro-
1978b:40-43). We shall return to this last question ductive. 10
momentarily, but let us first examine more closely the
passage Mandel cites. LABOR IN THE SPHERE OF CIRCULATION
The passage in question occurs toward the end of Mandel makes another controversial argument in his
Marx’s lengthy discussion of Smith’s &dquo;second definition.&dquo; brief discussion of productive and unproductive labor. He
In this discussion, as in much of Theories of Surplus- argues that there is a discrepancy between the way Marx
Value, Marx’s views were mixed up with passages in defines productive labor in Theories of Surplus- Value and
which he was simply working out the implications (cor- in the section on circulation in volume 2 of Capital. Thus,
&dquo;
rect or incorrect) of his &dquo;subjects’ arguments. It is not at Mandel feels that in the earlier work (Theories of Surplus-
all clear into which category the passage Mandel cites Value) Marx wavered between defining productive labor
falls. This, of course, does not refute Mandel’s argument; as that which produces surplus-value and defining it as
it merely points out the danger of quoting passages from that which is exchanged with capital (not revenue). On
this work without examining their context. And, the the other hand, in volume 2 of Capital, Marx defined pro-
general sense of the discussion in which this passage oc- ductive labor as that which produces surplus-value and

36
Downloaded from rrp.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on January 27, 2014
pointed out that not all labor that exchanges with capital the market grow, it becomes more efficient to have a
is productive - this is the case for commercial labor. separate branch of capital to deal with the increasingly
Mandel seems to feel that the latter formulation is clearer large and complex business of commerce. Marx sums up
and more useful, but he does not make any attempt to this separation as follows:
resolve the apparent contradiction (Mandel 1978a:403-4; Commercial capital is ... nothing but the pro-
1978b:40-43). If Mandel is correct, he has raised a serious ducer’s commodity-capital which has to
problem of interpretation for students of the issue we are undergo the process of conversion into
money - to perform itss function off
considering. Therefore, let us examine Marx’s remarks on commodity-capital on the market - the only
the sphere of circulation - perhaps the contradiction difference being that instead of representing
Mandel perceives can be resolved. an incidental function of the producer, it is
Marx was quite explicit in stating his views on the now the exclusive operation of a special kind
of capitalist, the merchant, and is set apart as
relationship between circulation and the production of the business of a special investment of capital.
value:
The general law is that all costs of circulation
(Capital 3:270).
What is efficient about the existence of a separate
which arise from changes in the forms of com-
modities do not add to their value. They are commercial branch of capital is its ability to expedite the
merely expenses incurred in the realization of process of selling the goods themselves and avoid delays
value or its conversion from one form into in the conversion of the producer’scommodity-capital in-
another. (Capital 2:149). to money. Thus, the merchant, because he is able to
Marx was excluding here from the &dquo;costs of circulation&dquo; devote all his time to selling and because he can perform
those processes taking place in the sphere of circulation this function for many individual producers, reduces the
which can be regarded as part of the process of production amount of society’s time and money devoted to this
(e.g., transport and possibly storage). Since these are, to operation (relative to what would have been the case had
an extent, part of the process of production, they are each individual producer been obliged to market his own
spheres in which value and surplus-value are produced goods) (Capital 3:275). On the other hand, the merchant,
(Capital 2:136-52). But, Marx argued, these processes do in buying the goods from the producer before they are ac-
not help us to understand the specific nature of commer- tually sold, avoids delays in the latter’s producing more
cial capital and the circulation process and therefore must commodities. That is, the productive capitalist does not
be left out of consideration here (Capital 3:267-68). Hav- have to wait for the final sale of his goods to begin again
ing noticed this, we now need to look at what it means to the production process: once the merchant has bought
say that circulation is concerned with changes in the form them, the producer can re-invest the money he receives in
of commodities. labor, raw materials and machinery. The merchant must
Marx’s view, as laid out in volumes 2 and 3 of sell the goods to consumers for the cycle to be complete
Capital, that no value is produced in the sphere of circula- from the point of view of the goods themselves. But, the
tion, rests on his argument that, in order to be reproduced producer may proceed without waiting for this final sale
and augmented, the value which the capitalist holds in (Capital 3:274). To sum up, then, Marx’s view of the role
commodity-form must be realized. That is, the goods of commercial capital relative to productive capital:
which the worker has produced for him must be sold if the Merchant’s capital... does not create either
capitalist is to be able to buy more raw materials, value or surplus-value, at least not directly. In
so far as it contributes to shortening the time
machines and labor-power and set the production process
of circulation, it may help indirectly to in-
in motion again. If the goods are not sold, they begin to
crease the surplus-value produced by the
lose value and the capitalist’s ability to accumulate is capitalists. In so far as it helps to expand the
thereby reduced. The sphere of circulation, then, is that in market and effects the division of labour be-
which this transformation of commodities into money tween capitals, hence enabling capital to
takes place. No new use-values are created. Nor is any operate on a larger scale, its function pro-
motes the productivity of industrial capital,
value added to the existing commodities - they are simply and its accumulation. In so far as it shortens
sold, transformed into their money equivalent.ll accumulation time, it raises the ratio of
Therefore, circulation is a necessary but unproductive surplus-value to advanced capital, hence the
moment in the circuit of capital. Any expenses which are rate of profit. And to the extent that it confines
a smaller portion of capital to the sphere of cir-
incurred in the process of buying and selling are, from the
culation in the form of money-capital, it in-
point of view of capital, a necessary loss of value which creases that portion of capital which is engag-
could otherwise have been productively employed. ed directly in production (Capital 3:280).
As long as production is on a relatively small scale, In order to understand fully the argument that com-
industrial capitalists themselves can perform the duties of mercial capital is unproductive, we should take note of
marketing and sales. But, as the scale of production and Marx’s explanation of the source of profit in the sphere of

37
Downloaded from rrp.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on January 27, 2014
circulation. Of course, Marx was aware that the merchant This raises the question of whether these unproduc-
makes a profit; indeed, he argued that the merchant, as tive workers are, in fact, comparable to those we discuss-
any other capitalist, must receive the average annual rate ed earlier. It is interesting to note that in concluding one of
of profit, calculated on the capital he advances (Capital the sections on productive and unproductive labor in
3:282).12 The question is, what is the source of this profit? Theories of Surplus-Value, Marx made a remark that
We have already seen that no value is produced in the seems to suggest that commercial workers are different:
sphere of circulation, so this cannot be the source. Nor, Here we have been dealing only with produc-
according to Marx, does the merchant’s profit derive from tive capital, that is, capital employed in the
his selling goods above their value. Rather, his profit
direct process of production. We come later to
derives from the fact that he buys goods from the pro-
ducer at a price below their actual price of production capital in the process of circulation. And only
after that, in considering the special form
(i.e., their cost of production, plus the average rate of pro- assumed by capital as merchant’s capital, can
fit). That is, the source of profit in the sphere of circula- the question be answered as to how far the
tion is the value that is already embodied in the commodi- labourers employed by it are productive or
ty but has not been fully realized by its sale to the mer- unproductive. (TSV 1:413).
chant at a price below that which the industrial capitalist This, of course, proves nothing - but, let us look at
would command if he sold it himself (Capital 3:285). In a what has just been said about the characteristics of com-
sense, this is the price the productive capitalist must pay
mercial wage-labor. Commercial workers have two im-
for the advantages of the existence of a separate commer-
cial branch of capital. portant characteristics which differentiaie them from un-
productive workers in the process of production: their
labor is exchanged with capital, not revenue; and their
Marx extended his analysis to deal with the problem labor allows the commercial capitalist to appropriate
of wage-labor employed by commercial capital. He surplus-value, even if they do not produce any
acknowledges that commercial capitalists do employ themselves. Clearly, a tailor whomI employ to make a
wage-laborers. Indeed, he argues that, in many respects, pair of trousers for my own use has neither of these
the latter are comparable to industrial wage workers. For characteristics. He does not enable me to appropriate
example, the price of their labor-power (their wage) is surplus-value, and I pay him out of revenue, not capital.
determined by the cost of their reproduction. However, Both of these kinds of labor are unproductive, but in
inasmuch as the commercial capitalist, as an agent of cir- rather different ways, and for very different reasons - the
culation, produces no value or surplus-value, neither do one because it is employed by an unproductive moment of
his employees. Thus, the bookkeepers, accountants and capital, the other because it doesn’texchange with capital
other office workers required by the commercial capitalist at all.
must be classified as unproductive laborers from the point Therefore, it seem to me that Mandel’s two defini-
of view of capital. This does not alter the fact that, since tions can be easily reconciled. When Marx, in Theories of
these workers’ wages represent advanced capital, the mer- Surplus-Value, appears to oscillate between defining pro-
chant receives the average rate of profit on them (Capital ductive labor as that which produces surplus-value and as
3:296-98). that which exchanges with capital, there is, in fact, no
Nevertheless, commercial wage workers do perform oscillation. For, Marx is speaking here only of the direct
surplus-labor, according Marx. This is important in
to process of production, in which any labor that exchanges
two respects. First, from the point of view of the mer- with capital will produce surplus-value, On the other
chant, the fact that he can turn his capital over more hand, in volume 2 of Capital, where Marx is dealing with
rapidly at no result of this unpaid labor
extra cost as a the process of circulation, this is no longer the case. As we
means that the mass of his profits will be greater-i.e., he have seen, workers employed by capital in this sphere
can complete more purchases and sales (Capital 3:293). labor only to change the form of commodities; they can-
On the other hand, from the point of view of industrial not add value to these commodities, hence cannot be pro-
capital, the costs of realizing surplus-value are reduced by ductive. In short, it is obvious that Marx was discussing
this unpaid labor (Capital 3:295). Nevertheless, the reduc- two different cases, in which the unproductive nature of
tion of these costs of circulation is in the interest of the in- various kinds of labor is the result of rather different
dustrial capitalist; from his point of view they remain un- causes. The &dquo;two definitions&dquo;, therefore, are simply the

productive expenditures (Capital 3:299-300). This com- product of the different contexts in which they occur.
plex nature of commercial wage-labor allowed Marx to They do not contradict each other.
remark, perhaps somewhat misleadingly, that it is pro-
ductive from the point of view of the merchant, un- THE ROLE OF THE DISTINCTION
productive from the point of view of the productive OF MARX’S THOUGHT
capitalist. (Capital 3:301). In the first part of this article, I have attempted to

38
Downloaded from rrp.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on January 27, 2014
clarify what Marx meant by productive and unproductive when he referred to unproductive workers in this context
labor. In what follows, I will attempt to establish the role he was thinking primarily of personal servants. 13 Now, as
of these concepts in Marx’s critique of political economy. we have seen, these are not the only kind of unproductive

As was indicated earlier, a number of Marxist authors workers - indeed, there is a whole category of unproduc-
have argued that the distinction between productive and tive workers (commercial workers) who are in a very dif-
unproductive labor is something like a class distinction. ferent position relative to the capitalist class. Similarly,
Thus, for example, Nicos Poulantzas argues that, for even within the category of unproductive workers whom

Marx, the working class is more or less synonymous with Marx described as being paid for revenue, there are such
productive labor (Poulantzas 1974:213). (However, diverse occupations as servants, doctors, clowns, govern-
Poulantzas’ analysis of contemporary class structure can- ment workers, clergymen, etc. In short, the category of
not be reduced to this single remark.) Similarly, Paul unproductive labor is very heterogeneous. This does not
Sweezy sees something akin to a class distinction between prove that it is not a class. Nevertheless, it is dangerous to
the unproductive &dquo;new middle class&dquo; who are paid out of argue, on the basis of a passage in which Marx referred to
revenue and the working class which produces that one kind of productive and unproductive labor as a class
revenue (Sweezy 1970:284). These are clearly important distinction. 14
arguments, for, if they are correct, they provide an A number of other arguments can be mustered
answer to the difficult question of the class position of a against the view that unproductive labor constitutes a
large number of white collar workers. However, before class. We have already seen that the very same labor can
we can accept the hypotheses of Sweezy and Poulantzas, be either productive or unproductive, depending on the
we need to take a closer look at whether the concepts of context. As one observer asked, would one wish to argue
productive and unproductive labor can legitimately be that a janitor employed in a factory (productive labor)
applied in this manner. and a janitor employed in a commercial enterprise (un-
Several passages in Marx’s writings appear to refer to productive labor) are members of different classes?
unproductive workers as a class. For example, in Volume (Wright 1978:50n). Furthermore, Marx even referred to
2 of Theories of Surplus-Value, Marx remarked sar- the capitalist as a productive worker in the sense that as
castically : &dquo;guide&dquo; of the labor-process his labor is embodied in the
For the worker it is equally consoling that product of the collective worker. (Results 142). Given
because of the growth in the net product, more this, if we regard productive labor as coterminous with
spheres are opened up for unproductive the working class, we place ourselves in the absurd posi-
workers, who live on his product and whose tion of having to call the capitalist a member of that class.
interest in his exploitation coincides more or
less with that of the directly exploiting classes. Finally, we have seen, Marx clearly suggested that certain
(TSV 2;571). kinds of unproductive labor (e.g., commercial workers)
Further on in the same discussion, Marx referred to the are exploited in the sense that they perform surplus-labor.

&dquo;middle classes&dquo; who are between the capitalist and the If this is so, then it becomes difficult to support Sweezy’s
worker and are maintained out of revenue (TSV 2:573). view of these workers as &dquo;pariahs&dquo; who have a direct in-
Thus, it would seem that Marx himself tended to treat un- terest in the exploitation of the working class.
productive laborers as a class distinct from the working All in all, then, it would be a mistake to equate the
class and in some sense opposed to it. Or, at the very least, distinction between productive and unproductive labor
one would appear to be obliged to agree with Ian Gough’s with a class distinction. It is not possible to classify
more qualified observation that Marx sometimes, as in various workers clearly and unambiguously using these
these passages, argued in this way (Gough 1972:69-71). categories and it is not possible to exclude certain ob-
However, let us look more closely at what Marx was viously non-proletarian elements (e.g., the capitalist
saying here. In these passages, Marx was commenting on himself) from the category of productive labor.
Ricardo’s views on the effects of machinery on the Moreover, as will become clear in a moment, Marx did
workman. Ricardo admitted that the introduction of not make the distinction between productive and un-
machinery may be detrimental to the worker, as it may productive labor in order to provide himself with a
reduce the demand for labor. He qualified this judgment, classificatory scheme to be used in class analysis. Rather, I
however, by observing that the lower price of com- think it can be shown that Marx, in making this distinc-
modities resulting from mechanization will allow tion, was attempting to focus an issue raised by bourgeois
capitalists and landlords to expend more of their income political economists in such a way as to indicate their
in employing personal servants. Thus, workers made shortcomings and to point to the all-important problem
redundant by machinery would find employment as per- which they failed to analyze-exploitation
sonal servants (Ricardo 1971:381-84). We need not go As will be recalled, the definition of productive labor
into Marx’s critique of this argument, but it is clear that was important to classical political economy because it

39
Downloaded from rrp.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on January 27, 2014
was related to the question of the nature and origins of In other words, a correct &dquo;capitalist&dquo; definition of produc-
wealth. It seems to me that very much the same thing can tive labor merely poses the problem of how it is that this
be said of Marx. Indeed, he made this quite clear in one of labor produces a surplus.
his descriptions of productive labor: Therefore, we can now see the very specific role
As all capitalist production rests on the direct played by the distinction between productive and un-
purchase of labour in order to appropriate a productive labor in Marx’s theory. Marx took over from
part of it without purchase in the process of bourgeois political economy this distinction and found it
production; which part however is sold in the to be essentially correct -as far as it went. Classical
product - since this is the basis of the existence
of capital, its very essence - is not the distinc- political economy had established that the relationship
tion between labour which produces capital which produced wealth was that between productive
and that which does not produce it the basis labor and capital. Marx acknowledged this and then ask-
for an understanding of the process of ed the &dquo;obvious&dquo; question - why does this exchange pro-
capitalist production. (TSV 1:293). duce wealth? The answer to this question, of course, lies
In other words, the definition of productive labor is im-
in the nature of capitalist exploitation, and it is to an
portant because it is the exchange of capital with produc-
tive labor that is the source of bourgeois wealth. It is not analysis of exploitation that Capital is devoted. Thus, the
or consumption that produces wealth - in the
distinction between productive and unproductive labor
exchange
course of his remarks on productive labor, Marx explicit- merely introduced the most crucial aspect of capitalist
social relations, without actually providing an adequate
ly attacked Smith’s critics because they saw consumption
as a necessary spur to production, hence equally &dquo;produc- analysis of it.
tive&dquo; of wealth. (TSV 1:281). Rather, it is the production
CONCLUSION
process, and the production process alone, that produces
wealth. In this, Marx was basically in agreement with All of this underlines a critical problem that Poulant-
zas and others tend to forget. That is, Marxist theory
Smith, Ricardo, and the other &dquo;giants&dquo; of classical political
holds that the class structure of capitalism is determined
economy.
However, Marx went beyond Smith and Ricardo in not by capitalists’ views (correct as they may be) as to
whether a category of worker is productive or not of
two important respects. First, he explicitly stated that the
definitions of productive labor and wealth, which he surplus-value, but by the exploitation of labor by capital.
found in classical The concepts of productive and unproductive labor, as
political economy, are not universal;
we have seen, do not provide us with an adequate analysis
they are applicable and appropriate to capitalist society
alone. In another form of society, they would be defined of exploitation. Indeed, it could even be argued that they
tend to obscure the analysis. Thus, we must never assume
differently. This is something that political economy,
which universalized bourgeois forms, did not understand. that productive labor is exploited (e.g., the capitalist as
Furthermore, Marx contended that, in order to unders- &dquo;guide&dquo; of the labor process) or that unproductive labor is
not exploited (e.g., commercial wage-labor). Consequent-
tand capitalist society, it is not enough to establish what is
productive labor: ly, if we are to understand the nature of capitalist ex-
Ricardo never concerns himself about the ploitation, and the class structure it generates, we must
origin of surplus-value. He treats it as a thing develop a more profound analysis of capitalism than the
inherent in the capitalist mode of production, concepts of productive and unproductive labor by
which mode, in his eyes, is the natural form of themselves will allow us to do.
social production. Whenever he discusses the Capitalist eyloitation is, of course, a complex series
productiveness of labour, he seeks in it, not of relationships. The analysis of the appropriation of
the cause of surplus-value, but the cause that
determines the magnitude of that value. On surplus-value by capital that Marx provides in volume 1
the other hand, his school has openly pro- of Capital gives us only a starting point for understanding
’,

claimed the productiveness of labour to be the these complexities. It is by now quite obvious, as it was to
originating cause of profit (read: surplus- Marx, that capitalism is not simply a production process
value). This at all events is a progress as but comprises as well a wide variety of institutions in
against the mercantilists who, on their side, d,
derived the excess of the price over the cost of commerce, government, education, administration, etc.
production from the act of exchange, from the And, it is precisely in these kinds of institutions that the
product being sold above its value. Never- mass of white collar workers are concentrated. Therefore,
theless, Ricardo’s school simply shirked the if we are to understand these workers in class terms, we
problem, they did not solve it. In fact, these need to know a great deal more about the nature of the in-
bourgeois economists instinctively saw, and stitutions in which they work. We need to know, first of
rightly so, that it is very dangerous to stir the
burning question of the origin of surplus- all, what functions these institutions perform in capitalist
value. (Capital 1:515-16). society - i.e., how do they relate to capital. Furthermore,
40
Downloaded from rrp.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on January 27, 2014
we need know whether their employees are exploited,
to been applied to the State by various analysts. A con-
and, if so,how. Marx has already performed such an troversy has raged over whether the State and/or its con-
analysis for commerce and commercial workers. We need stituent parts can be regarded as productive. This impor-
to (and can) do so for various other institutions and tant question cannot be resolved here. However, to
workers, using Marx’s hints and suggestions as well as understand the class nature of State employees we must
historical and sociological information. deal with the question of exploitation. Thus, if we argue
The concepts of productive and unproductive labor that State workers are exploited, productive workers, we
(and of productive and unproductive consumption) may must conclude that they are likely to be similar to produc-
be of some use here. Although Marx was careful to stress tive workers in the private sphere. If, on the other hand,
the fact that a &dquo;correct&dquo; understanding of what is produc- we argue that they are exploited, unproductive workers,
tive labor for capital does not constitute a full analysis of we need to examine the nature of this exploitation and

capitalism, he clearly does not reject these concepts establish if it is, in fact, similar to that experienced by pro-
altogether. Capitalism, after all, is a mode of production ductive workers. However, if we find that State
based on the production of surplus-value. An excessive employees are unproductive workers who are not ex-
amount of unproductive expenditures may interfere with ploited, we may be obliged to regard them as &dquo;parasites&dquo;
the process of accumulation by drawing too much capital on productive workers, and intrinsically
opposed to the
away from the productive sphere. If such an imbalance latter’s struggles against capitalist exploitation. Clearly,
develops, the unproductive sphere will be under con- the concepts of productive and unproductive labor tell us
siderable pressure to rationalize itself, perhaps through in- only part of what we need to know.
tensifying the exploitation of its workers. It is my feeling, therefore, that Marxist theory must
Marx acknowledged this possibility when he remark- go beyond the concepts of productive and unproductive
ed that wage-labor in the commercial sphere, because it is labor and analyze in detail the complex process of
unproductive, is subject to a process of rationalization (to capitalist exploitation. Moreover, in focusing Marxist
reduce its cost) similar to that experienced by productive class analysis on exploitation, we must be careful not to
workers. Moreover, Marx suggested that the number of reproduce the error that has characterized far too much
commercial workers tends to expand when capital has Marxist theory - i.e., the tendency to treat classes as
more value and profits to realize (i.e., when it is prosper- static, conceptual &dquo;boxes&dquo; into which the social scientist
ing) (Capital 3:300-1). It follows that when capital falls can sort individuals. We should not be content with an at-

upon hard times this sector would encounter pressures to tempt to &dquo;classify&dquo; individuals as &dquo;exploited&dquo; or &dquo;not ex-
streamline itself, remove redundancies, and the like, all of ploited.&dquo; Instead, we must focus on the actual an-
which would tend to intensify the rationalization of com- tagonisms engendered by exploitative social relations that
mercial wage-labor. (Things might occur differently in are, in my view, the basis of class formation. Much work
other sectors that Gough (1975:82-3) has described as &dquo;in- remains to be done before we understand the complexities
directly productive&dquo;-i.e., unproductive, but con- of both capitalist exploitation and class formation in
tributing to productivity elsewhere in the economy.) capitalist society.15 Nevertheless, if we are to avoid tax-
Thus, an understanding of the concepts of productive and onomic approaches to class, and reinstate the basic Marx-
unproductive labor may help us to understand the ist insight that class and class conflict are dynamic rela-
dynamics of the relationships between various kinds of tionships structuring the movements of capitalist society,
capital and labor and perhaps even the timing of certain we must begin with an analysis of the fundamental an-
changes in those relationships. tagonism that constitutes that society-capitalist ex-
However, we must be aware of the limits of the utili- ploitation.
ty the concepts of productive and unproductive labor.
of
For, we do not learn very much about a group of workers Peter Meiksins
by identifying them as productive or unproductive unless Dept. of Sociology
we also establish if and how they are exploited. The case State University of New York,
of public service workers illustrates this point very well. Geneseo
The concepts of productive and unproductive labor have Geneseo, New York 14454

Footnotes (In text) Footnotes

1 An earlier version of this paper was presented before the Canadian

a The following abbreviations will be used throughout this paper Sociology and Anthropology Association in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan,
for references to Marx’s works Theories
TSV - of Surplus-Value June 1979 I am gratetul to my audience, as well as to Stephen Hellman
, Results-"Results of the Im-
Grundrisse
,Grundrisse-
Capital
Capital- "
John Fox, Ellen Wood, Joyce Mastboom and Istvan Neszaros for their
mediate Process of Productions helpful comments

41
Downloaded from rrp.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on January 27, 2014
 2. See Bidet 1976 for another example of this approach. described a teacher as a productive worker.
3. Similar definitions can be found in Marx’s other writings For ex- 8. This criticism of Poulantzas is also made in Colliot-Thelene
ample : TSV 1:393, Results 133 1977.126-27.
4. It is important to take note of this point, for a failure to do so has 9. Mandel’s discussion of services also deals with the question of pro-
led to considerable confusion in certain discussions of productive and un- ductive and unproductive consumption—i.e., with the role of various
productive labor Several authors have attempted to argue that labor ex- sectors of the economy in the reproduction of capital. I do not intend to
pended in the production of luxury goods or military equipment is un- consider this thorny question here. However, it should be pointed out
productive because it is "wasteful." This, however, is to misunderstand that Marx saw this as a completely different question from that of pro-
completely Marx’s definition of what is productive labor for capital For ductive and unproductive labor. (Results 139-40; Grundrisse 306n).
an example of this spurious argument, see Morris 1958. 10. The category of "service workers" is an extremely vague one As
5 Marx put it this way in Grundrisse 305n. In many ways this is a Mandel himself has pointed out, many so-called service workers actually
more revealing way of expressing the relationship. produce a material commodity—as, for example, an employee of Mac-
6. This point is discussed in detail in Berthoud 1977:90-92. Donald’s. (Mandel 1978b:44-45). A failure to recognize this fact can con-
7. I have already quoted a passage from Capital in which Marx fuse even further the question of whether "services" can be productive.

References

Berthoud, Arnaud. Travail Productif et Productivité du Travail _. Grundrisse Harmonsworth: Penguin Books Ltd., 1973.
Chez Marx. Paris: François Maspero, 1974. _. of Surplus Value, 3 vols. Moscow: Progress
Theories
_. Marx et A. Smith à Propos de Travail Productif et de Publishers, 1975.
l’Economie Politique." In Marx et L’Economie Politique Paris: Presses _. "Results of the Immediate Process of Production," in Value
Universitaires de Grenoble et François Maspero, 1977. Studies , ed. Albert Dragstedt. London: New Park Publications,
by Marx
Bidet, Jacques. Travail Productif et Classes Sociales Paris: Les 1976.
Cahiers du Centre d’Etudes et de Recherches Marxistes, 1976. Meiksins, Peter. ’The Social Origins of White Collar Work." Ph.D.
Colliôt-Thélène, Catherine. "Remarques Sur le Statut du Travail Dissertation, New York University, 1980.
Productif dans la Théorie Marxiste." Critiques de l’Economie Politique 10 Morris, Jacob. "Unemployment and Productive Employment."
(Jan-Mar 1973). Science and Society 22 (1958).
_. "Contribution à Une Analyse des Classes Sociales." Criti- Poulantzas, Nicos. Les Classes Sociales dans le Capitalisme Au-
ques de l’Economie Politique 19 (1976). jourd’hui Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1974.
Draper, Hal. Karl Marx’s Theory of Revolution, vol. I: State and Ricardo, David. Principles of Political Economy and Taxation Har-
Bureaucracy. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1977. mondsworth: Penguin Books Ltd , 1971.
Gough, Ian. "Productive and Unproductive Labour in Marx." New Rosdolsky, Roman. The Making of Marx’s ’Capital London: Pluto
Left Review 76 (November-December 1972). Press, 1977.
_. "State Expenditures in Advanced Capitalism." New Left Rubin, I.I. Essays on Marx’s Theory of Value Montreal Black Rose
Review 92 (July-August 1975). Books, 1973
Mandel, Ernest. Late Capitalism London: Verso Books, 1978a. Smith, Adam The Wealth of Nations New York Modern Library,
_.
, vol II, by Karl Marx. Harmond-
Introduction to Capital 1937.
sworth: Penguin Books, 1978b. Sweezy, Paul The Theory of Capitalist Development New York:
Malthus, Thomas R. Principles of Political Economy London. The Monthly Review Press, 1970
International Economic Circle, 1936. Wright, Enk Olin Class Crisis and the State London: New Left
Marx, Karl. Capital
, 13 vols. New York: International Publishers, Books, 1978
1975

42
Downloaded from rrp.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on January 27, 2014