Re: fragment on machines (was Re: [PEN-L] query)

[tom walker <lumpoflabour@xxxxxxxx>]

I wouldn't say it's necessarily inconsistant with
Marx. It's inconsistant with some traditional
interpretations of the statement about the forces and
relations of production and I think there is enough
ambiguity in it to support, at least selectively, both
interpretations.

michael perelman wrote:

> Tom, how is your last part inconsistant with Marx?
> Surely, capitalists
> have long used techno. means to change production
> methods to decrase
> reliance on unruly workers.
>
> tom walker wrote:
>
> >Without going into much detail at the moment, I
> >believe that the Italian autonomist theorists sort
> of
> >turned this fettering stuff on it head, in a manner
> of
> >speaking. And their positions were based on their
> >readings most particularly of the Grundrisse
> >(especially the fragment on machines) and of the
> >previously unpublished "Chapter Six" of Capital and
> >the distinction between formal and real subsumption
> of
> >labor.
> >
> >So for the autonomists, the "fetters" and crisis
> are
> >manifestations of the working class struggle and it
> is
> >capital's effort to overcome this resistence by
> >workers that leads to new forms of the labor
> process.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>______________________________________________________________________
> >Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
> Chico, CA 95929
> 530-898-5321
> fax 530-898-5901
>

______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca