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previously unpublished "Chapter Six" of Capital and 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
