[Marxism] Fwd: Once again on the formal/real subsumption question |Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

jamie pitman marinercarpentry at gmail.com
Sun Jan 24 13:44:37 MST 2016

Subsumption is the subject of my PhD thesis. It jars with a lot of traditional Marxism's most precious shibboleths - ltrpf and the Ricardian interpretation of the ltv, in particular.

-----Original Message-----
From: "Louis Proyect via Marxism" <marxism at lists.csbs.utah.edu>
Sent: ‎24/‎01/‎2016 20:31
To: "jamie pitman" <marinercarpentry at gmail.com>
Subject: [Marxism] Fwd: Once again on the formal/real subsumption question |Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

********************  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.

In my post on “Anglocentrism and the real subsumption of labor”, I 
mistakenly attributed Marx’s discussion of formal and real subsumption 
to the Grundrisse.. In actually is contained in “The Results of the 
Direct Production Process”, which is part of a third draft of Capital 
that Marx wrote between the summer of 1863 and the summer of 1864, and 
is based on a plan Marx made for the work in December 1862. After 
reading it, I find myself troubled by how it fits into Marx’s more 
general analysis of the exploitation of labor in light of his statement:

	Just as the production of absolute surplus value can be regarded as the 
material expression of the formal subsumption of labour under capital, 
so the production of relative surplus value can be regarded as that of 
the real subsumption of labour under capital.

Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/marinercarpentry%40gmail.com

More information about the Marxism mailing list