he distinguishes them - iirc saying the exchange value of labour power reflects it's cost of reproduction. fortunati mainly adds the (false, imho) claim that reproductive labour creates value. (i don't know off the top of my head whether marx called 'reproduction of labour power' 'reproductive labour' though, that may have come from the autonomia/marxist feminist stuff in the 70s)
reproductive labour
Yes, Marx only makes a distinction between productive and unproductive labor. The former produces surplus-value, the latter does not. He frequently refers to unproductive labor as labor as "faux frais".
As for whether or not "that [is] a distinction from our pov", yes, it is, since the working class confronts capital and capital is produced only by a specific form of labor. There are not two different realities here.
Isn't there an important distinction between "unproductive labor" and "reproductive labor" though? When Marx is distinguishing between productive and unproductive labor, he's talking about productive and unproductive wage-labor (e.g. the factory worker vs. the bank clerk). Reproductive labor (e.g. that of the house wife) is not wage labor, productive or otherwise.
mikus wrote:
As for whether or not "that [is] a distinction from our pov", yes, it is, since the working class confronts capital and capital is produced only by a specific form of labor. There are not two different realities here.
Some "groups" would say there is, would they not? Who?
Very quick question:
Marx doesn't make a distinction between productive and reproductive labour. That distinction is something that's introduced by later writers (Fortunati, I think).
Right or wrong?