> I suspect this is based on Marx's analysis of the creation of value. That is, for Marx only primary production creates value, all other economic or human acti

> I suspect this is based on Marx's analysis of the creation of value. That is, for Marx only primary production creates value, all other economic or human activity destroys value. Can I have a source for that please? It seems absurd. > They are additional services that increase the cost of the product, and Marx actually used the term parasitic for these activities and argued they should all be minimised or preferably eliminated. Today we use the term "overhead". Are you saying that the cost of distributing products should not be minimized? > The result was actual productivity in the real economy collapsed because it turns out some of these parasitic activities are kind of important. They ruthlessly stripped out all the bullshit and produced stale, drab societies of bored hungry drones. Thanks guys. So the Soviet economy failed because... the things it produced were not actually distributed to the people as that would have destroyed value in the eyes of the CPSU? I never heard of that theory before. > Who actually needs plays, books of fiction, music, [...]? As a specific example? People who like to criticise them after dinner, like Marx. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8116796-for-as-soon-as-the-distribution-of-labour-comes-into https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8116796-for-as-soon-as-the-...