Comments on: … is a political animal? http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2006/09/18/is-a-political-animal/ A working notebook Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:15:24 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha by: Paul http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2006/09/18/is-a-political-animal/#comment-923 Tue, 19 Sep 2006 12:01:36 +0100 http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2006/09/18/is-a-political-animal/#comment-923 Hi Nate, yup I am one of Keir's multitude :) - we met at Alice's play, as I recall. Re "real" in the context of subsumption. I would agree that formally subsumption is "really"/genuinely capitalist in the sense that the formally subsumed labour process is still being used in the capitalist M-C-M' cycle. Personnally I think that formally subsumed labour processes persist to this day alongside "really" subsumed ones. Indeed, if one of the characteristics of the transition from the former to the latter is the alienation of the bulk of the producers from the overall use value production (as in the assembly line, for e.g.) then many aspects of the kind of labour processes that Lazzarato, Virno, Negri et al. are talking about under the rubric of "immaterial labour", is precisely that they have move more back towards the formal subsumption model in terms of relative creative autonomy and direct relationship to the production of use values. How these trends can then be part of some epochal shift towards more real subsumption is a puzzle. Hi Nate, yup I am one of Keir’s multitude :) - we met at Alice’s play, as I recall.

Re “real” in the context of subsumption. I would agree that formally subsumption is “really”/genuinely capitalist in the sense that the formally subsumed labour process is still being used in the capitalist M-C-M’ cycle. Personnally I think that formally subsumed labour processes persist to this day alongside “really” subsumed ones. Indeed, if one of the characteristics of the transition from the former to the latter is the alienation of the bulk of the producers from the overall use value production (as in the assembly line, for e.g.) then many aspects of the kind of labour processes that Lazzarato, Virno, Negri et al. are talking about under the rubric of “immaterial labour”, is precisely that they have move more back towards the formal subsumption model in terms of relative creative autonomy and direct relationship to the production of use values. How these trends can then be part of some epochal shift towards more real subsumption is a puzzle.

]]> by: Nate http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2006/09/18/is-a-political-animal/#comment-922 Tue, 19 Sep 2006 01:40:02 +0100 http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2006/09/18/is-a-political-animal/#comment-922 Paul - are you Kier's friend? Were you once working on a history walk in Leeds, about riots and such, with some guy in IT? If so, then I met you in passing once on a trip over that way... if not, sorry to mix you up with someone else. cheers, Nate Paul - are you Kier’s friend? Were you once working on a history walk in Leeds, about riots and such, with some guy in IT? If so, then I met you in passing once on a trip over that way… if not, sorry to mix you up with someone else.
cheers,
Nate

]]> by: Nate http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2006/09/18/is-a-political-animal/#comment-921 Tue, 19 Sep 2006 00:51:33 +0100 http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2006/09/18/is-a-political-animal/#comment-921 Paul, I agree with you and Marx (naturally). But this "not real" is a different "not real" in the way that, say, a unicorn or my imaginary friend is not real. Those things can't be used as battering rams or anti-cop ammo. The real/not-real thing in Marx seems to me to not be an ontological matter. The (ahem) real stakes for me are what Marx means by 'real' when he talks about real subsumption/subordination as the specifically capitalist mode of production (in v1 in the International Publishers edition, p510, 624, and 629 - I don't mean to be pedantic, just including the page numbers here for my own use later). Related terms to look into are 'specific' and 'direct' in this same sense in Marx. The difference here, to my mind, is that the unworn coat is not a coat, not really, in the sense of 'real' that Marx uses. I'm fine with that. It's a bit of a weird turn of phrase but the point at stake is very important. On the other hand, capitalism which includes the formal subsumption of labor processes that pre-existed capitalism (capitalism prior to real subsumption and relative surplus value production if one takes these as stages in time, something I'm not sure one should do) is real capitalism, though. I'm not okay with saying otherwise. Formal subsumption, even if we keep it distinct from real subsumption, is still a form of subsumption which is real in the sense in which the coat worn is a real coat. take care, Nate Paul,
I agree with you and Marx (naturally). But this “not real” is a different “not real” in the way that, say, a unicorn or my imaginary friend is not real. Those things can’t be used as battering rams or anti-cop ammo. The real/not-real thing in Marx seems to me to not be an ontological matter. The (ahem) real stakes for me are what Marx means by ‘real’ when he talks about real subsumption/subordination as the specifically capitalist mode of production (in v1 in the International Publishers edition, p510, 624, and 629 - I don’t mean to be pedantic, just including the page numbers here for my own use later). Related terms to look into are ’specific’ and ‘direct’ in this same sense in Marx. The difference here, to my mind, is that the unworn coat is not a coat, not really, in the sense of ‘real’ that Marx uses. I’m fine with that. It’s a bit of a weird turn of phrase but the point at stake is very important. On the other hand, capitalism which includes the formal subsumption of labor processes that pre-existed capitalism (capitalism prior to real subsumption and relative surplus value production if one takes these as stages in time, something I’m not sure one should do) is real capitalism, though. I’m not okay with saying otherwise. Formal subsumption, even if we keep it distinct from real subsumption, is still a form of subsumption which is real in the sense in which the coat worn is a real coat.
take care,
Nate

]]> by: Paul http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2006/09/18/is-a-political-animal/#comment-920 Tue, 19 Sep 2006 00:18:57 +0100 http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2006/09/18/is-a-political-animal/#comment-920 Marx is right that the unworn coat is not a real coat - it is potentially a coat, it is also potentially a whole number of other things as well. It's important not to confuse the physical object with the use value. The end-user has the option of appropriating the object for a use entirely different from that intended by the producer - See the section on "Whose Use Value" in http://sidewinder.blogsome.com/the-production-of-use-values/. An example I used there from a riot in the 1980's where rioters broke into an electronic goods shop window and seized a load of (then) expensive video cameras... to use as ammunition against the cops. If people decide not to put trains on the railways tracks but instead use the rails as electrical power transport lines (admittedly probably not very efficient or safe!) then its not a real railway - it's a real electrical line. Just as in an old black and white silent comedy when the pursuing crowd pick up a stunned keystone cop from the floor and use his body and helmeted head as a battering ram to break down a door barring their pursuit, the disjuction between intended use value and real use value is always a possibility - one that can on occassion be creative of ruptures in the reproduction of "really subsumed" daily life (quotidien). Marx is right that the unworn coat is not a real coat - it is potentially a coat, it is also potentially a whole number of other things as well. It’s important not to confuse the physical object with the use value. The end-user has the option of appropriating the object for a use entirely different from that intended by the producer - See the section on “Whose Use Value” in http://sidewinder.blogsome.com/the-production-of-use-values/.
An example I used there from a riot in the 1980’s where rioters broke into an electronic goods shop window and seized a load of (then) expensive video cameras… to use as ammunition against the cops. If people decide not to put trains on the railways tracks but instead use the rails as electrical power transport lines (admittedly probably not very efficient or safe!) then its not a real railway - it’s a real electrical line. Just as in an old black and white silent comedy when the pursuing crowd pick up a stunned keystone cop from the floor and use his body and helmeted head as a battering ram to break down a door barring their pursuit, the disjuction between intended use value and real use value is always a possibility - one that can on occassion be creative of ruptures in the reproduction of “really subsumed” daily life (quotidien).

]]>