Jag utgår ifrån det eftersom jag så väldigt sällan ser det diskuteras.

Angående Marx så har jag bara tittat en liten smula på Teorier om mervärdet (där han bland annat skriver om pianister) och tycker inte att det motsade vad Paolo Virno skriver i A Grammar of the Multitude:

Marx analyzes intellectual labor, distinguishing between its two principal types. /…/ This is the same distinction which Aristotle made between material production and political action. The only difference is that Marx in this instance is not concerned with political action; rather, he is analyzing two different representations of labor. To these specifically defined types of poiesis he applies the distinction between activity-with-end-product and activity-without-end-product. The second type of intellectual labor (activities in which “product is not separable from the act of producing,”) includes, according to Marx, all those whose labor turns into a virtuosic performance: pianists, butlers, dancers, teachers, orators, medical doctors, priests, etc.

So then, if intellectual labor which produces an end product does not pose any special problems, labor without an end product (virtuosic labor) places Marx in an embarrassing situation. The first type of intellectual labor conforms to the definition of “productive labor.” But what about the second type? /…/ Of course, even virtuosic performances can, in principle, produce surplus-value: the activity of the dancer, of the pianist, etc., if organized in a capitalistic fashion, can be a source of profit. But Marx is disturbed by the strong resemblance between the activity of the performing artist and the servile duties /…/ According to Marx, even if the “virtuosist” workers represent, on one hand, a not very significant exception to the quantitative point of view, on the other hand, and this is what counts more, they almost always converge into the realm of servile/non-productive labor. Such convergence is sanctioned precisely by the fact that their activity does not give way to an independent end product: where an autonomous finished product is lacking, for the most part one cannot speak of productive (surplus-value) labor. Marx virtually accepts the equation work-without-end-product = personal services. In conclusion, virtuosic labor, for Marx, is a form of wage labor which is not, at the same time, productive labor (Theories of Surplus-value: 410-411).

Det skulle vara ytterst intressant att få detta utrett…

En liten kort kommentar. Karl Marx definition av produktivt arbete skiljer sig radikalt från Adam Smiths. I Kapitalets “fjärde bok”, på svenska “Teorier om mervärdet”, definierar Marx produktivt arbete som det arbete vilket producerar mervärde. Alltså är en cirkusclown produktiv, skriver Marx, om clownen är anställd till en direktör, som i sin tur tar betalt för att folk ska titta på clownen.

Adam Smith menade att produktivt arbete är vad som utmynnar i “vendible goods”, alltså i hans modell varor och annat greppbart.

De två teorierna är dock väldigt olika.