Mensaje citado por Gil Skillman <gskillman@mail.wesleyan.edu>: > Now, on the passage you cited. First, as you'll see from my reply to John > Milios, I think the economic logic undergirding this passage is suspect at > best, and believe that Marx largely drops this "dependency" (i.e., > monopsony) interpretation of increasing capitalist control of production in > his economic writings after the Grundrisse. > > But second, and more to the point, as I understand it *no* passage in > Grundrisse, let alone this particular one, can possibly be taken to speak > to the issue of what *Marx* meant by "formal subsumption of labor under > capital," since Marx did not introduce this analytical distinction until > the Economic Manuscript of 1861-63, 3 years after he finished the > Grundrisse notebooks. The notions of formal and real subsumption of labor > under capital are thus nowhere to be found in the Grundrisse. > does not the formal/actual subsumption parallel his later use of the distinction between manufacture and modern industry. I take the distinction between these to be the mature form of the concept that is prefigured in the Grundrisse > As far as I know, Marx first introduces the notion of "formal subsumption" > early on in the EM 61-63 in the following passage: > > "This *formal* subsumption of the labour process, the assumption of control > over it by capital, consists in the worker's subjection as worker to the > supervision and therefore to the command of capital or the > capitalist." [Marx-Engels Collected Works, V. 30, p93] > > This definition of formal subsumption is then consistently maintained in > other passages discussing the phenomenon in the Ec Mss 61-63 and the > Resultate, from which I quoted in my previous post. So far, Marx never > contradicts his initial stipulation that formal subsumption involves direct > capitalist supervision over the production process. To the contrary, he > associates this new form of worker subordination with the achievement of > *absolute* surplus value relative to the surplus value that exists under > preceding forms of the circuit of capital, associated with the greater > continuity and scale of labor performed under capitalist supervision. > > As a corollary, Marx repeatedly asserts that the rural > handicraft/buyer-up/putter-out relation *did not* constitute an instance of > formal subsumption of labor under capital. Besides the passage from the > Resultate that says just that, quoted in my previous post, also see these > passages from the EM 61-63: [Marx-Engels CW, V. 30, p. 270; V. 34, pp. 96, > 117-19, 144] > > And finally, Marx maintains this distinction in Volume I of Capital: > > "It will be sufficient if we merely refer to certain hybrid forms, in > which...the producer has not yet become formally subordinate to > capital. In these forms, capital has not yet acquired a direct control > over the labour process. Alongside the independent producers, who carry on > their handicrafts or their agriculture in the inherited, traditional way, > there steps the usurer or merchant with his usurer's or merchant's capital, > which feeds on them like a parasite." [p. 645, Penguin] > > > Note I'm not suggesting that you don't have a more economically coherent > notion of "formal subsumption" than Marx. Perhaps you do, and that would > be an interesting line to pursue. But in any case, it does not appear to > be *Marx's* conception of the term. > > Gil > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Aug 02 2002 - 00:00:04 EDT