<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/1.5.1-alpha" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: &#8230; is up with the insistence on the new?</title>
	<link>http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2005/10/23/is-up-with-the-insistence-on-the-new/</link>
	<description>A working notebook</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:45:28 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Nate</title>
		<link>http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2005/10/23/is-up-with-the-insistence-on-the-new/#comment-410</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2006 06:03:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2005/10/23/is-up-with-the-insistence-on-the-new/#comment-410</guid>
					<description>Addendum. 
Right, one mistake immediately in the first paragraph: 
Hardt and Negri don't claim reproductive labor was not productive of value before the present era. It's implied and entailed by their arguments, and I think much of their claims about the special novelty of the future would fall apart if they said outright that reproductive labor was always-already value productive under capitalism, but they never actually make a claim of this sort about reproductive labor. It'd be easier and less irritating if they did, in a way.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Addendum.<br />
Right, one mistake immediately in the first paragraph:<br />
Hardt and Negri don&#8217;t claim reproductive labor was not productive of value before the present era. It&#8217;s implied and entailed by their arguments, and I think much of their claims about the special novelty of the future would fall apart if they said outright that reproductive labor was always-already value productive under capitalism, but they never actually make a claim of this sort about reproductive labor. It&#8217;d be easier and less irritating if they did, in a way.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
