******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
Dobb, for my money, completely misinterprets subsumption (or ‘subordination’ in his Studies), putting it in a historicist, stagist frame. I would argue its precisely not this (i.e. a periodisation), which is what most Marxist schools of thought have traditionally argued. If you read the Results carefully, Marx claims that real subsumption in one place/ sector will inaugurate formal subsumption elsewhere. Massimiliano Tomba writes well about this in his book, the name of which escapes me for now. But if you reject the methodological nationalism of Brenner then this is the way forward when thinking through subsumption – formal and real (hybrid and ideal are further sub-categories, btw) in a complex interplay at the level of a global pool of surplus value. Jamie Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Louis Proyect via Marxism Sent: 25 January 2016 17:10 To: jamie pitman Subject: Re: [Marxism] For Karl Marx, writers of romance novels are productiveworkers ******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. ***************************************************************** On 1/24/16 1:08 PM, Louis Proyect wrote: > "Milton, for example, who did Paradise Lost, was an unproductive worker. > In contrast to this, the writer who delivers hackwork for his publisher > is a productive worker." > > https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1864/economic/ch02b.htm I am rereading some chapters in Maurice Dobb's "Studies in the Development of Capitalism" to get a handle on this formal subsumption business since Dobb is very good on the whole handicraft evolving into industrial capitalism angle. Despite his reputation as being a precursor to Brenner because of his famous debate with Paul Sweezy, Dobb was a hell of a lot closer to Sweezy than he was to Brenner (as Brenner would probably admit.) In any case, I came across this fascinating reference in Dobb to the origins of the word masterpiece that we would associate with John Milton, Michaelangelo, Beethoven et al. It turns out that it was originally a term used to describe a work submitted by a journeyman to qualify for entry into a guild in Medieval days. Here's wikipedia: "Originally, the term masterpiece referred to a piece of work produced by an apprentice or journeyman aspiring to become a master craftsman in the old European guild system. His fitness to qualify for guild membership was judged partly by the masterpiece, and if he was successful, the piece was retained by the guild. Great care was therefore taken to produce a fine piece in whatever the craft was, whether confectionery, painting, goldsmithing, knifemaking, or many other trades." Interesting to think that the word once used for a cake is now used routinely for just about everything, including Hollywood movies. _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/marinercarpentry%40gmail.com _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
