[PEN-L:3932] Re: Re: subsumption questions, round 2

["rc-am" <rcollins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

hi tom,

>My view is that one has to go beyond the distinction between formal
and real
>subsumption for the answer. I would argue that Marx already did go
one step
>beyond that distinction in the published text of Capital, describing
a third
>'moment' of subsumption, one that I would call social subsumption.

 can i bother you for any refs for this?


>Further, I think there's another step or three that Marx didn't take,
which
>has to do with the subsumption of the labour processes in
circulation -- or
>to put it another way, the subsumption of the function of the
capitalist.

by which you mean credit and management, or something other?  can you
elaborate when you have a moment - also on what you might think are
the six stage you referred to?  and, explain to me why these aren't
covered by or reducible to the shift from formal to real subsumption.


angela