Leo Casey wrote:
>
> It is at best a very partial and very economistic reading of Marx's
> conception of the subsumption of labor by capital that makes it into a
minor
> footnote on the historical emergence of the capitalist mode of production.
Okay. Fine.
>
> actual dynamics of class struggles under capitalism. It is in the context
of
> this insight that one begins to see that many of the themes highlighted in
> so-called post-modernist analysis -- questions of knowledge and science --
> are rooted in the labor process, and that Marxian analysis has something
> important to add to the conversation over them. To the extent that H&N pick
> up the theme of the subsumption of labor by capital, they highlight the
> continuing contribution the Marxian tradition can make on these themes.
Somehow I don't seem to get the impression that you have read "Empire," but
what the hey, this is PEN-L where things like that can matter less. Somehow
the
proposition that "they pick up the theme of the subsumption of labor by
capital" in a manner akin to Marx seems rawther dubious to me. More than
anything they convey the impression of stringing a bunch of words together
like
William Burroughs did in "Nova Express". But he seems to be much more skilled
with a scissors then they are.
Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
