formal and real subsumption
Jan 28 2008 18:03
give me one-line definitions of each please. i dare you. seriously though, where can I find concise explanations in capital?
todd
Jan 28 2008 18:21
#2
obviously the distinction throws up quite a few controversial issues, ie does capitalism necesarily move towards certain mass production processes etc.
Jan 28 2008 18:53
#3
that makes sense. So is real subsumption shifts in the production like toyotism and stuff, hence why left commies are so into it?
Jan 28 2008 19:02
#4
here's the relevant quotes from Charlie.
wrote:
But the essential points in this formal subsumption of labour under capital are:1) that the worker confronts the capitalist, who possesses money, as the proprietor of his own person and therefore of his own labour capacity, and as the seller of the temporary use of the latter. Thus both meet as commodity owners, as seller and buyer, and thus as formally free persons, between whom in fact no other relation exists than that of buyer and seller, no other politically or socially fixed relation of domination and subordination;
2) (something which is implied by the first relation — for otherwise the worker would not have to sell his labour capacity) that the objective conditions of his labour (raw material, instruments of labour and therefore also means of subsistence during labour) belong, completely or at least in part, not to him but to the buyer and consumer of his labour, therefore themselves confront him as capital. The more completely these conditions of labour confront him as the property of another, the more completely is the relation of capital and wage labour present formally, hence the more complete the formal subsumption of labour under capital.
As yet there is no difference in the mode of production itself. The labour process continues exactly as it did before — from the technological point of view — only as a labour process now subordinated to capital. Nevertheless, there develops within the production process itself, as we have indicated earlier //and everything said about this earlier is only now in the proper place//, firstly a relation of domination and subordination, in that the consumption of labour capacity is done by the capitalist, and is therefore supervised and directed by him; and secondly a greater continuity of labour.
Quote:
With the real subsumption of labour under capital, all the changes we have discussed take place in the technological process, the labour process, and at the same time there are changes in the relation of the worker to his own production and to capital — and finally, the development of the productive power of labour takes place, in that the productive forces of social labour are developed, and only at that point does the application of natural forces on a large scale, of science and of machinery, to direct production become possible. Here, therefore, there is 5 change not only in the formal relation but in the labour process itself. On the one hand the capitalist mode of production — which now first appears as a mode of production sui generis [in its own right] — creates a change in the shape of material production. On the other hand this change in the material shape forms the basis for the development of the capital-relation, whose adequate shape therefore only corresponds to a particular level of development of the material forces of production. We have examined the way in which the worker’s relation of dependence in production itself is thereby given a new shape. This is the first point to be emphasised. This heightening of the productivity of labour and the scale of production is in part a result of, and in part a basis for, the development of the capital-relation.The second point is this, that capitalist production now entirely strips off the form of production for subsistence, and becomes production for trade, in that neither the individual’s own consumption nor the immediate needs of a given circle of customers remain a barrier to production; now the only barrier is the magnitude of the capital itself. On the other hand, where the whole of the product becomes a commodity (even where, as in agriculture, it partially re-enters production in natural form), all its elements leave the circulation and enter into the act of production as commodities. [XXI-1309] It is, finally, common to all these forms of capitalist production that, for production to occur in a capitalist way, an ever-growing minimum of exchange value, of money — i.e. of constant capital and variable capital — is required to ensure that the labour necessary to obtain the product is the labour socially necessary, i.e. that the labour required for the production of a single commodity = the minimum amount of labour necessary under average conditions. For objectified labour — money — to function as capital, it must be present in the hands of the individual capitalist in a certain minimum quantity; this minimum stands far above the maximum required in the case of the merely formal subsumption of labour under capital. The capitalist must be the owner or proprietor of means of production on a social scale, and the extent of their value, in one man’s concentrated possession, stands increasingly outside all relation with the amount an individual person or an individual family could accumulate over generations by their own hoarding. The extent of the conditions of labour required thus stands in no relation at all to what the individual worker could appropriate for himself in the most favourable case, by saving, etc. This minimum amount of capital in a given branch of business is the greater, the more developed it is capitalistically, the higher the development of the productivity of labour, the social productivity of labour or the productivity of social labour within it. Capital must increase the magnitude of its value to the same extent, and it must assume the extent of the means of production required for social production, hence shed its individual character entirely. It is precisely the productivity, and therefore the quantity of production, the numbers of the population and of the surplus population, created by this mode of production, that constantly calls forth new branches of industry, operating with the capital and labour that have been set free. In these branches capital can once again work on a small scale and again pass through the various phases of development required until with the development of capitalist production labour is carried on on a social scale in these new branches of industry as well, and accordingly capital appears again as a concentration of a great mass of social means of production in a single person’s hands. This process is continuous.
With the real subsumption of labour under capital a complete revolution takes place in the mode of production itself, in the productivity of labour, and in the relation — within production — between the capitalist and the worker, as also in the social relation between them.
Jan 28 2008 19:26
#5
also I dunno about left commies being into waxing lyrical about toyotism and the like, they certainly aren't as into it as Negri and chums, infact they;d probably be quite scathing of Negri et al's overstatement of 'toyotism' and post fordism as 'epoch' making/defining.
Jan 28 2008 19:31
#6
I read that bit in the economic manuscripts right? Is there nothing about it in capital? I've read Vol 1 and part of 2 but hadn't seen it.
Jan 28 2008 19:47
#7
booeyschewy wrote:
I read that bit in the economic manuscripts right? Is there nothing about it in capital? I've read Vol 1 and part of 2 but hadn't seen it.
You'll be looking for the originally unpublished section of Capital, "Results of the immediate processes of production" that Marx decided to leave out (it was suppoused to go in just after the section on Primitive Accumulation). It isn't in my copy of Capital, infact I only found out about it cause Zizek quotes from it on Real and Formal Subsumption in the Parralax View.
Jan 28 2008 19:50
#8
revol68 wrote:
booeyschewy wrote:
I read that bit in the economic manuscripts right? Is there nothing about it in capital? I've read Vol 1 and part of 2 but hadn't seen it.You'll be looking for the originally unpublished section of Capital, "Results of the immediate processes of production" that Marx left out of Capital, it was suppoused to go in just after the section on Primitive Accumulation. It isn't in my copy of Capital, infact I only found out about it cause Zizek quotes from it on Real and Formal Subsumption in the Parralax View.
It's in the Penguin edition. As an appendix.
http://www.amazon.com/Capital-Critique-Political-Economy-Classics/dp/0140445684
Jan 28 2008 20:11
#9
Let me predict how the discussion will unfold: Someone, maybe several people will give a detailed history and bibliography, of the term. Then someone else will describe how later authors, Negri say, attempted to extend the concept. Then someone will give close readings of the originals texts showing how these later thinkers violated Marx's ORIGINAL INTENTIONS and call the later authors and anyone who was defended their ideas stupid and moveover call any discussion about the relevance of these ideas to modern struggles also stupid. Since people are tired of being beat up over these points, perhaps the ideas of those extending the concepts will be denounced without anyone bothering to defend them.
Personally, I've never used the formal/real distinction much. I know Negri and maybe Aufheben used the formal/real distinction to describe different levels of capitalist domination at present. I think that some terminology for describing various levels of contemporary capitalist domination is useful, even crucial, but in this case formal/real isn't appropriate. Today things are more like the real and the surreal. domination than real and formal except in less advanced third world nations (and even these are catching up).
Red
Jan 28 2008 20:21
#10
well Marx does say it is a continuous process.
Quote:
It is precisely the productivity, and therefore the quantity of production, the numbers of the population and of the surplus population, created by this mode of production, that constantly calls forth new branches of industry, operating with the capital and labour that have been set free. In these branches capital can once again work on a small scale and again pass through the various phases of development required until with the development of capitalist production labour is carried on on a social scale in these new branches of industry as well, and accordingly capital appears again as a concentration of a great mass of social means of production in a single person’s hands. This process is continuous.
Jan 28 2008 20:59
#11
I think it is clear that all Marx meant was that, when capitalism first spread to production in a big way, in the 18th century, at first the wage-paid producers were only "formally" subject to capital in the sense that instead of working on their own spinning or weaving machines in their homes they worked on the same sort of machines but owned by a capitalist and on the capitalist's premises (in a factory). It was only later that the machines on which they worked were transformed into something that could not be operated by an individual in their homes that the producers became "really" subordinated to capital. In other words, this is something that has been and gone a long tome ago (sometime in the last century but one). It is true that some "left communists" make a big song and dance about it as if it's something that only happened in 1914. But they are wrong.
Jan 28 2008 21:04
#12
Doesn't real subsumption also explain things like freeways, containerization, automization, teh interweb, etc.?
eta: or is that explained as "intensive accumulation"? If so, what's the relation between the two?
Jan 28 2008 21:18
#13
capricorn wrote:
I think it is clear that all Marx meant was that, when capitalism first spread to production in a big way, in the 18th century, at first the wage-paid producers were only "formally" subject to capital in the sense that instead of working on their own spinning or weaving machines in their homes they worked on the same sort of machines but owned by a capitalist and on the capitalist's premises (in a factory). It was only later that the machines on which they worked were transformed into something that could not be operated by an individual in their homes that the producers became "really" subordinated to capital. In other words, this is something that has been and gone a long tome ago (sometime in the last century but one). It is true that some "left communists" make a big song and dance about it as if it's something that only happened in 1914. But they are wrong.
but processes of production have been constantly changed, broken down and restructured, old forms of substumption have been been superceded , new means of atomising workers and resistance develop, new technologies allow new processes etc.
I mean even look at the demise of the single capitalist and the rise of finance capital, that could be understood as the real subsumption of capitalists to the dominance of Capital.
Jan 28 2008 22:13
#14
Hmm,
Actually, I think that paragraph revol quotes isn't about the movement of capital from formal to real subsumption but the qualities of real subsumption.
But the paragraph is very useful in describing capitalist development. Various other adjectives have been used to describe our present capitalist system which undergone this intensive process for many years. These other adjective include "advanced", "late", "decadent", "post-modern", "spectacular", "developed", etc.
Red
Jan 28 2008 23:54
#15
I agree largely with Capricorn on this. For Marx the essential transition here is between 'manufacture' and the factory system proper - the first being a form of associating artisan labour, the second being the 'classic' capitalist production line. It certainly isn't something that coinicides with 1914. The key moment of transformation takes place in the early 19th century, although Revol is right to see it as continuous since throughout the 20th century capitalism continues to turn essentially pre-capitalist forms of production into capitalist production proper. As for left commies making a song and dance about it, this would apply to certain ex-Bordigists like Camatte and above all Internationalist Perspective, who make the transition from formal to real virtually interchangeable with the transition from ascendance to decadence.
Jan 29 2008 00:09
#16
no Alf my point is that it isn't simply pre capitalist forms going under real subsumption but that existing capitalist processes of production are subsumed and resubsumed.
Jan 29 2008 09:03
#17
I was thinking of this post: "In formal subsumption old forms of production are assimilated into the the circuits of capital ie peasants producing for and being paid by capitalists, whilst real subsumption is when the very processes of production are transformed by capital ie modern factory farming". . I agree with this, but what other changes inside existing capitalist processes of production would come under this definition in your opinion?
Jan 29 2008 09:56
#18
Alf wrote:
I was thinking of this post: "In formal subsumption old forms of production are assimilated into the the circuits of capital ie peasants producing for and being paid by capitalists, whilst real subsumption is when the very processes of production are transformed by capital ie modern factory farming". . I agree with this, but what other changes inside existing capitalist processes of production would come under this definition in your opinion?
The problem lies in what is defined as THE 'real subsumption', is it the production processes being put into a factory under the ownership of a single factory owner, or is this individual factory ownership not just a formal subsumption of the old 'lord', is real subsumption the move towards dismebodied 'capitalists', massive stock concerns, pension funds and the erosion of the 'individual capitalist'?
Jan 29 2008 10:02
#19
I think to stick to Marx's defintion we have to talk about the labour process - in that sense real subsumptiion is indeed equivalent to directly associated labour in factories or similarly 'collectivised' workplaces.
Jan 29 2008 10:15
#20
Alf wrote:
I think to stick to Marx's defintion we have to talk about the labour process - in that sense real subsumptiion is indeed equivalent to directly associated labour in factories or similarly 'collectivised' workplaces.
yeah but the issue then becomes quantitive, what level of collectivisation? What size of factory? What about collective production co ordinated globally? What about processes introduced in the production process that atomise workers not simply spatially but through hierarchies, competing teams etc.
Feb 2 2008 18:51
#21
Well I'm with 'Internationalist Perspectives' on this one I think. It seems to me that this concept orginating in Marx is indeed very useful and can be 'extended' to help understand both the past development of capitalist society and continuing changes going on throughout the world today - in China for instance. There is a parrallel concept here in the 'absolute' and 'relative' exploitation of labour which is perhaps more graphic in its description of the change in the dominant form of capital accumulation both globally and regionally. It can be argued that historically on a global level capitalism effectively made this shift around the beginning of the 20th century, but the process is of course still continuing (and with occasional hicups even when formal domination seems the established norm in most 'developed' economies).
Whilst this seems a sounder basis to argue for a theory of decadence as IP does,
http://internationalist-perspective.org/IP/ip-archive/ip_42_how-capitalism-changed.html
this doesn't end the usefulness of the concepts in analysing and understanding what is going on around us today including some of the differences in different parts of the world.
Feb 2 2008 19:29
#22
The definitions are very simple in Marx. It's amazing to me that this always comes up as if it were a big issue. (Not necessarily on this messageboard, but in Marxist discussions).
Formal subsumption is when old labor processes performed by peasants, artisans, and so forth, are then undertaken under the command of a capitalist. So the old machinery, labor process, etc., is still used but now the capitalist directs the process. This is essentially what Capricorn said. What revol said was close but not quite right. He mentioned "peasants producing for and being paid by capitalists" as an example of "formal subsumption" but this isn't correct because if the laborers are peasants and not wage-laborers, then they have not been formally subsumed (i.e. the form of their labor is still private, peasant labor, even if the proto-capitalist skims off the top). (It is useful to think about the meaning of the word "form." In Marx this is generally used to distinguish the different sorts of labor processes characteristic of different epochs of production, say feudalism and capitalism. It wouldn't make much sense to say that peasant labor performed for the benefit of a merchant is "formally" the same as wage-labor, since in fact the "form" of the two sorts of labor is the primary distinguishing characteristic.) For Marx the putting out system was a transitional phase between feudal or private labor and formal subsumption. Formal subsumption only begins when the peasant is transformed into a wage-laborer. (This is also described in greater detail in a number of unpublished chapters in Vol. 3, where Marx describes the history of merchant and interest-bearing capital.)
Real subsumption occurs when the old labor processes are transformed. For Marx this occurred with the development of manufacture (to some extent) and especially with the factory system. (This is described in great detail in Chapters 13-15 of Capital, Vol. I, which in my opinion is Marx's most developed discussion of these issues despite the fact that he didn't use the infamous phrases themselves.)
Naturally the labor process is constantly transformed, as revol has pointed out and I doubt anyone would deny. But the terms are used (by Marx) as terms for one specific transition, namely that from the original transformation of peasants and independent laborers into wage-laborers, into the transformation of labor processes to such an extent that they were not and could not be used by independent laborers. Again, this is a matter of definition. If one wants to explain why labor processes are constantly transformed one would use not certain phrases, but Marx's theory of relative surplus-value.
A lot of the discussion suffers from the idea that when one explains what "formal" and "real" subsumption are, one is making some kind of empirical statement about "formal and real subsumption." In fact all one is doing is laying down definitions that are then used in the development of a theory. What "formal and real subsumption" are is not an empirical issue in the slightest, but only an issue of definition. In my opinion it would be easiest to stick with Marx's definitions since he was the least confused about this point but as it's not up to any one person how terms are used, I guess we will just have to deal with the confusion by being very clear on what we mean. (Rather than getting into ridiculous arguments where one side says "Real subsumption is x", and the other side says "Real subsumption is y", and it appears as if there is a substantive disagreement when in fact it is only a matter of definition.)
A good example of how this confusion manifests itself is this question asked by Oliver: "Doesn't real subsumption also explain things like freeways, containerization, automization, teh interweb, etc.?" The answer is "No." Formal and real subsumption are terms used to denote certain historical transitions. They are not theories. And as short-hand terms, they don't explain anything. Naming something does not explain it. (This is not to deny that one can "explain" those phenomena but the explanation will have nothing to do with simple definitions.)
And to the original question as to whether or not Marx used the term in Capital, Vol. I, Marx uses the phrases in passing, without defining them clearly, at the beginning of Ch. 16 (pg. 645 of the Penguin edition). Obviously Marx didn't think the terms themselves were terribly important and instead spent more time describing the actual transitions which took place (Ch.13-15).
Mike
Feb 3 2008 09:13
#23
Quote:
What revol said was close but not quite right. He mentioned "peasants producing for and being paid by capitalists" as an example of "formal subsumption" but this isn't correct because if the laborers are peasants and not wage-laborers, then they have not been formally subsumed (i.e. the form of their labor is still private, peasant labor, even if the proto-capitalist skims off the top). (It is useful to think about the meaning of the word "form." In Marx this is generally used to distinguish the different sorts of labor processes characteristic of different epochs of production, say feudalism and capitalism. It wouldn't make much sense to say that peasant labor performed for the benefit of a merchant is "formally" the same as wage-labor, since in fact the "form" of the two sorts of labor is the primary distinguishing characteristic.)
I was saying they were wage labourers (that is paid by capitalists rather than simply selling their product to merchants) but essentially still peasants in that their labour process hadn't changed ie still working much like they did under feudalism for the lord, y'know like the seasonal landless peasants that were still a large group in Spain as far on as 1936.
Feb 3 2008 09:18
#24
Quote:
In my opinion it would be easiest to stick with Marx's definitions since he was the least confused about this point but as it's not up to any one person how terms are used, I guess we will just have to deal with the confusion by being very clear on what we mean. (Rather than getting into ridiculous arguments where one side says "Real subsumption is x", and the other side says "Real subsumption is y", and it appears as if there is a substantive disagreement when in fact it is only a matter of definition.)
Except Marx used the phrase 'formal and real subsumption' and that doesn't simply act as an value free arbitrary singifier like a name ie calling something formal and the other real isn't simply like saying 'this is A and this is B', but implies ideas of what are the correct forms of production for capitalism and what are simply residual forms destined to be transformed. The fact Marx dropped this section from Capital might well have been because of the can of worms that it opens.
Feb 4 2008 06:28
#25
revol68 wrote:
Quote:
What revol said was close but not quite right. He mentioned "peasants producing for and being paid by capitalists" as an example of "formal subsumption" but this isn't correct because if the laborers are peasants and not wage-laborers, then they have not been formally subsumed (i.e. the form of their labor is still private, peasant labor, even if the proto-capitalist skims off the top). (It is useful to think about the meaning of the word "form." In Marx this is generally used to distinguish the different sorts of labor processes characteristic of different epochs of production, say feudalism and capitalism. It wouldn't make much sense to say that peasant labor performed for the benefit of a merchant is "formally" the same as wage-labor, since in fact the "form" of the two sorts of labor is the primary distinguishing characteristic.)I was saying they were wage labourers (that is paid by capitalists rather than simply selling their product to merchants) but essentially still peasants in that their labour process hadn't changed ie still working much like they did under feudalism for the lord, y'know like the seasonal landless peasants that were still a large group in Spain as far on as 1936.
I think you are talking about the "putting out system", where a merchant advances raw materials, tools and money to peasants, who produce from their own household, and who then give the finished product to the merchant who sells it for a higher price than his initial advances. (So the merchant is also a capitalist, since he is only interested in the expansion of his money.) In Marx's definition, this is not "formal subsumption" but is a transitional form of merchant's capital. (Marx also discusses how this system of production grows up in the interstices of the capitalist economy somewhere in Vol. 1 of Capital, probably in Ch. 15). If that's not what you were talking about, then perhaps you are correct, but it's hard to understand what production process you're specifically speaking of.
revol68 wrote:
Quote:
In my opinion it would be easiest to stick with Marx's definitions since he was the least confused about this point but as it's not up to any one person how terms are used, I guess we will just have to deal with the confusion by being very clear on what we mean. (Rather than getting into ridiculous arguments where one side says "Real subsumption is x", and the other side says "Real subsumption is y", and it appears as if there is a substantive disagreement when in fact it is only a matter of definition.)Except Marx used the phrase 'formal and real subsumption' and that doesn't simply act as an value free arbitrary singifier like a name ie calling something formal and the other real isn't simply like saying 'this is A and this is B', but implies ideas of what are the correct forms of production for capitalism and what are simply residual forms destined to be transformed. The fact Marx dropped this section from Capital might well have been because of the can of worms that it opens.
Actually, it is exactly like saying "this is A and this is B". In science, theorists have the liberty to use terms they like. Scientists are constantly creating new definitions in the interest of precision. Unless, of course, you want to argue that, say, words like "mass" or "matter" have various non-scientific connotations within physics just because some hare-brained philosophers have used the terms for their own ridiculous purposes!
This is not to say that one might not read certain normative implications into the terminology (this has happened many times, which I'm not afraid to admit, indeed the confusion created by this is the entire reason I have posted on this thread), but that doesn't mean that such implications are there in Marx's own work. Unless you can demonstrate it with textual evidence, which I don't think you can.
And in any case this has little to do with the issue which I had brought up before, which is that the terms "formal" and "real subsumption" are not empirical theories. Even if we accept your claim that the phrases are normative, it doesn't change them into empirical theories, since giving a normative opinion on something does nothing to explain it.
(For example, if we had called "formal subsumption" something blatantly normative like "shitty subsumption", on the one hand, and called "real subsumption", say, "good subsumption" on the other, we still wouldn't have moved a step closer to making the terms into a theory. They'd still be no more than designators for a certain kind of production process It's just that the terms would additionally express an attitude to the facts. But an attitude towards facts is not an explanation of facts.)
Feb 4 2008 11:24
#26
Quote:
I think you are talking about the "putting out system", where a merchant advances raw materials, tools and money to peasants, who produce from their own household, and who then give the finished product to the merchant who sells it for a higher price than his initial advances. (So the merchant is also a capitalist, since he is only interested in the expansion of his money.) In Marx's definition, this is not "formal subsumption" but is a transitional form of merchant's capital. (Marx also discusses how this system of production grows up in the interstices of the capitalist economy somewhere in Vol. 1 of Capital, probably in Ch. 15). If that's not what you were talking about, then perhaps you are correct, but it's hard to understand what production process you're specifically speaking of.
I think he's referring to serfs/slaves-turned-sharecroppers, and being paid wages, but still using the same means of production.
Feb 4 2008 12:03
#27
well, here's an opportunity to agree with mikus....The defintion in Marx is rather precise and doesn't cover changes inside an already- existing developed capitalist production process, nor can it be directly applied to small producers like peasants still producing independently but oppressed by capital in various ways, although it may be the next stage of their exploitation.
I haven't read the IP article and will have to put it on my To Do list. In the meantime, perhaps spikeymike can summarise why he thinks the formal/real transition gives us a better basic for understanding the decadence
of capitalism?
Feb 4 2008 13:22
#28
Quote:
I think you are talking about the "putting out system", where a merchant advances raw materials, tools and money to peasants, who produce from their own household, and who then give the finished product to the merchant who sells it for a higher price than his initial advances. (So the merchant is also a capitalist, since he is only interested in the expansion of his money.) In Marx's definition, this is not "formal subsumption" but is a transitional form of merchant's capital. (Marx also discusses how this system of production grows up in the interstices of the capitalist economy somewhere in Vol. 1 of Capital, probably in Ch. 15). If that's not what you were talking about, then perhaps you are correct, but it's hard to understand what production process you're specifically speaking of.
eh no I'm not talking about a 'putting out system' at all, I'm talking about peasants who are directly employed by estates and paid a wage for their labour. Why you are determined to misrepresent my post is beyond me. There was huge swathes of Europe that had massive estates unchanged from Feudal times except peasant workers no longer worked so many days a month on the lords harvest from an obligation but instead they were seasonal workers. They were in essence proletarian yet carried out the same work processes they did as serfs. Of course when one get's into the specifics of this example things get a whole fuck lot complex and that's because Marx's movement from formal to real is idealised, the wage labourers working for the capitalist still eek out a subsistence from small holdings. Even today aspects of "merchantilism" "persist" (as if they are simply historical residue), with IT workers being let go and becoming formally 'self employed' contractors. This whole issue highlights the problem of mistaking idealised conceptual movements for history itself. Your claim that Marx is simply describing a historical factual movement of A to B is absurd, because such movements continue to happen within modern capitalism, certain workers proletarianised, others atomised into 'self employment' and pitted against each other as competing 'contractors'.
Quote:
Actually, it is exactly like saying "this is A and this is B". In science, theorists have the liberty to use terms they like. Scientists are constantly creating new definitions in the interest of precision. Unless, of course, you want to argue that, say, words like "mass" or "matter" have various non-scientific connotations within physics just because some hare-brained philosophers have used the terms for their own ridiculous purposes!This is not to say that one might not read certain normative implications into the terminology (this has happened many times, which I'm not afraid to admit, indeed the confusion created by this is the entire reason I have posted on this thread), but that doesn't mean that such implications are there in Marx's own work. Unless you can demonstrate it with textual evidence, which I don't think you can.
And in any case this has little to do with the issue which I had brought up before, which is that the terms "formal" and "real subsumption" are not empirical theories. Even if we accept your claim that the phrases are normative, it doesn't change them into empirical theories, since giving a normative opinion on something does nothing to explain it.
(For example, if we had called "formal subsumption" something blatantly normative like "shitty subsumption", on the one hand, and called "real subsumption", say, "good subsumption" on the other, we still wouldn't have moved a step closer to making the terms into a theory. They'd still be no more than designators for a certain kind of production process It's just that the terms would additionally express an attitude to the facts. But an attitude towards facts is not an explanation of facts.)
What nonsense, there are clear teological implications to Marx's use of 'Formal and Real Subsumption' infact he lays it out in the missing section 7, formal is whereby capital extracts surplus value using wage labour whilst 'Real' is when capital doesn't simply change the relations of payment and employment but changes the processes of production from those of 'feudalism' to those of 'capitalism'. Like if i said you are formally a member of this club meanig on paper but you are a real member when you actually take part in it, make use of it as it is suppoused to be. This sort of teology is no stranger to Marx's writings, infact forces of production determinism cropes up through out, this is simply a less explicit restatement of his quote from the German Ideology
Quote:
'The windmill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam mill, society with the industrial capitalist'
Except it;s a nice Hegelian reversal whereby even though the capitalist comes before the steam mill, this is only a necessary narrative "Formality" before the 'Real' arrvies.
As for 'mass' and 'matter', well I'm afraid Marx isn't dealing with hard sciences but with social relations and history so terms like formal and real subsumption carry alot more implications.
Feb 6 2008 01:57
#29
revol68 wrote:
Quote:
I think you are talking about the "putting out system", where a merchant advances raw materials, tools and money to peasants, who produce from their own household, and who then give the finished product to the merchant who sells it for a higher price than his initial advances. (So the merchant is also a capitalist, since he is only interested in the expansion of his money.) In Marx's definition, this is not "formal subsumption" but is a transitional form of merchant's capital. (Marx also discusses how this system of production grows up in the interstices of the capitalist economy somewhere in Vol. 1 of Capital, probably in Ch. 15). If that's not what you were talking about, then perhaps you are correct, but it's hard to understand what production process you're specifically speaking of.eh no I'm not talking about a 'putting out system' at all, I'm talking about peasants who are directly employed by estates and paid a wage for their labour. Why you are determined to misrepresent my post is beyond me.
If I was "determined" to misrepresent you I wouldn't have left open the possibility that you weren't talking about what I thought you were talking about. I would've simply said you were wrong.
revol68 wrote:
There was huge swathes of Europe that had massive estates unchanged from Feudal times except peasant workers no longer worked so many days a month on the lords harvest from an obligation but instead they were seasonal workers. They were in essence proletarian yet carried out the same work processes they did as serfs. Of course when one get's into the specifics of this example things get a whole fuck lot complex and that's because Marx's movement from formal to real is idealised, the wage labourers working for the capitalist still eek out a subsistence from small holdings. Even today aspects of "merchantilism" "persist" (as if they are simply historical residue), with IT workers being let go and becoming formally 'self employed' contractors. This whole issue highlights the problem of mistaking idealised conceptual movements for history itself. Your claim that Marx is simply describing a historical factual movement of A to B is absurd, because such movements continue to happen within modern capitalism, certain workers proletarianised, others atomised into 'self employment' and pitted against each other as competing 'contractors'.
OK.
revol68 wrote:
mikus wrote:
Actually, it is exactly like saying "this is A and this is B". In science, theorists have the liberty to use terms they like. Scientists are constantly creating new definitions in the interest of precision. Unless, of course, you want to argue that, say, words like "mass" or "matter" have various non-scientific connotations within physics just because some hare-brained philosophers have used the terms for their own ridiculous purposes!This is not to say that one might not read certain normative implications into the terminology (this has happened many times, which I'm not afraid to admit, indeed the confusion created by this is the entire reason I have posted on this thread), but that doesn't mean that such implications are there in Marx's own work. Unless you can demonstrate it with textual evidence, which I don't think you can.
And in any case this has little to do with the issue which I had brought up before, which is that the terms "formal" and "real subsumption" are not empirical theories. Even if we accept your claim that the phrases are normative, it doesn't change them into empirical theories, since giving a normative opinion on something does nothing to explain it.
(For example, if we had called "formal subsumption" something blatantly normative like "shitty subsumption", on the one hand, and called "real subsumption", say, "good subsumption" on the other, we still wouldn't have moved a step closer to making the terms into a theory. They'd still be no more than designators for a certain kind of production process It's just that the terms would additionally express an attitude to the facts. But an attitude towards facts is not an explanation of facts.)
What nonsense, there are clear teological implications to Marx's use of 'Formal and Real Subsumption' infact he lays it out in the missing section 7, formal is whereby capital extracts surplus value using wage labour whilst 'Real' is when capital doesn't simply change the relations of payment and employment but changes the processes of production from those of 'feudalism' to those of 'capitalism'. Like if i said you are formally a member of this club meanig on paper but you are a real member when you actually take part in it, make use of it as it is suppoused to be.
The fact that you read those implications into the terminology does not mean Marx intended it that way. That'd have to be decided with (uh-oh!) textual evidence. Anything else is mere assertions. (And quotes probably won't work either, since any quote demands an interpretation. And if we don't agree on the interpretation, then the quote cannot be used to decide either way. And unless you have criterion for deciding interpretations, you will have to admit that my interpretation is just as good as yours.) If you actually read the passage in question (didn't you just read Zizek's discussion of it anyway? I think this is another case of you going on about something you have no idea about.) you'd know that Marx does not derive the transition from "formal" to "real" subsumption from something inherit into the production process of formal subsumption, but from his theory of rising productivity due to competition (so that competitors can lower their cost-price and make a super-profit while gaining a market share from their competitors). So there is no "teleological" implication to the terminology of "formal" and "real" subsumption. If you were particularly determined you could call the theory of rising productivity (rather than the theory of formal and real subsumption, which I deny exists) "teleological" but then you'd be using "teleological" in such a way that all sciences would be "teleological", which would make the term rather redundant. (Marx only explains how productivity develops in capitalism, he does not posit any kind of "goal" inherit in the process. It is just the case that competition compels the capitalists to be more productive. If this is teleological, then saying that an object moving along a certain path will eventually pass through point X would also be teleological. Any prediction would be teleological.)
revol68 wrote:
This sort of teology is no stranger to Marx's writings, infact forces of production determinism cropes up through out, this is simply a less explicit restatement of his quote from the German IdeologyQuote:
'The windmill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam mill, society with the industrial capitalist'
Firstly, the quote is from The Poverty of Philosophy, which should show how seriously you should be taken.
Secondly, the debate wasn't about teleology in Marx's writings, but about the meaning of "formal" and "real" subsumption. You claimed that they have a teleological meaning. They don't, and you have no evidence that they do, except that you just so happen to choose to read the passage that way (if you've even read the passage at all). Now you're switching to a discussion of Marx's writings in general. Fine. I'll even concede the point, because I don't really care. There can be teleology all over Marx's writings. There is no teleology in the discussion of formal and real subsumption, however.
revol68 wrote:
As for 'mass' and 'matter', well I'm afraid Marx isn't dealing with hard sciences but with social relations and history so terms like formal and real subsumption carry alot more implications.
I thought you were a philosophy major. I'm not aware of terms like "formal" and "real subsumption" having connotations in normal language or in philosophy-speak. I am aware of "matter" having connotations in both. Very strong ones in fact, which contradict current physical theories. You should let the physicists know that the words don't mean what they think they mean but in fact imply various religious and half-baked scientific views.
Mike
Feb 6 2008 02:12
#30
Except competition is constantly driving changes within capitalist production, if Marx was simply stating that competition forces such changes then it does become a constant process as alive today as it was in the 19th century, however if we read 'formal to real subsumption' as a one of historical movement (as you wish to) then it actually becomes about a movement from 'uncapitalist' production processes to properly 'capitalist' production processes, which clearly implies a notion of 'correct' production inline with capitalist development and 'residual' processes destined to be overthrown. It isn't a matter of simple continuous competition driven development but epochical and qualitive. Like I said however Marx talks about it being a constant process, it is you that wants to argue it relates to a specific historical movement.
As for your snipe about me mistaking the quote from the Poverty of Philosophy and The German Ideology, I must apologise a thousand times my learned friend I had shamefully got temporarily mixed up as the book i was using for a source stuck them together as they are both writings from the same year. I can not tell you the great burden this lapse has put on my shoulders, nay the very lineage of my family. 
Seriously there is only one thing worse than a nerdy pedantic cunt and it's a nerdy Marxist pedantic cunt.
And 'formal and real' clearly do carry connoations in everyday life and certainly in philosophy. If someone says something is a 'formality' they mean it is essentially superflous to a real process that has or is destined to take place eg. Manchester United's half time performance against Portsmouth has made the win simply a formality.
In formal subsumption old forms of production are assimilated into the the circuits of capital ie peasants producing for and being paid by capitalists, whilst real subsumption is when the very processes of production are transformed by capital ie modern factory farming.