the Factory and Society
Nate:
Notes on ch2. This chapter originally appeared in issue 2 of Quaderni Rossi, in 1962. Tronti reads Marx’s Capital to distinguish two levels of capitalist production, and two points of view on it:
1. The labor process
2. The valorization process
In the first the workers consume means of production, in the second the means of production consume labor power (also could be translated as work force, an ambiguity which is instructive and sadly lacking in English).In the first capital is command, in the second it’s exploitation, extraction of surplus value. (43) Lots of stuff on the wage and on appearance, the difference between the value of labor and the value of labor power, parts of Marx that I’m not as clear on, not the easiest to follow Tronti. Will have to review this later. I think the point here is that the capitalist use of labor power (ie, value productive labor) produces more value than it is purchased for.
Production, distribution, exchange, consumption - these are related, members of a totality, but not identical. (47)
Tronti identifies absolute surplus value (quantity of worktime) as the most basic moment of capitalism. Relative surplus value (rate of work, productivity of labor) as “specifically capitalist production”. (48) I don’t know what’s at stake in the this remark. Also I’ll have to review my Marx on this, I don’t recall Marx using these as stages, which Tronti seems to, but then I’m a selective (ie, sloppy) reader. I’m not sure what to make of the distinction - an important one, but I’d guess that extension of the work day was coterminous with attempts to regulate and increase the speed of work. That’s a historical question, in part, and partly a question about the definition of capitalism (what’s key and what’s peripheral/accidental).
Need to review further the next following pages, not sure what to make of them - Tronti distinguishes between the global worker and parts of the working class, don’t get it. (50)
I like this, in regard to legislation which then drive technical developments (Marx on the working day and on machinery) - “The struggle of the working classes has constrained the capitalist to modify the form of domination (…) to modify its internal composition; it intervenes in the interior of capital as an essential component of capitalist development; it pushes capitalist production forward, from inside, to the point where capital completely penetrates all external relations of social life.” (51) I like the active working class subject part, changes are driven by struggle. Not sure, though, about the implied nonrelation/nonpenetration of capital social life prior. Where is the place of unwaged work in this schema? Seems to be left out. I’d prefer a phrasing in terms of ‘re-arranging the interpenetration of (social) life and capital’.Need to think more on this, though, as it may be an argument with Marx too, not sure.
Need to review 52-62 again later. Immediate goal is to read the whole book through, then double back. Lots here on stages. Organization and the party come in at the end, and the relationship of the factory to the party to the state. Argues that the factory’s the place to start. I suspect this is related to other worker movement posititions at the time, don’t know the context well enough to say for sure though. I think I agree in part (don’t like the party or the state, but like the workplace focus), so maybe that makes it hard to see what the alternative would be. Also, I suspect that for Tronti ‘factory’ is not a placeholder for ‘workplace’ as it is for me, so maybe I don’t agree as much as I think I do.
Next section’s been translated already, under the title “Social Capital”. Read that a few years ago, didn’t get much. Read half in Spanish today before I remembered that. Going to read and take notes on the English version soon.
Also, note to self - I plan to go through and look up Tronti’s footnoted Marx references and write out where they are in the different volumes of Capital. That’d help me understand more of what’s going on here, as well as be helpful for the future translation plans when that project gets underway. Will start this when I get back home after New Year’s.
Re. absolute v. relative surplus value. I didn’t remember Marx being so stagist either, but then I read this:
[Is this where Negri gets his distinction between formal and real subsumption?]
And more:
Not stagist exactly, but he’s pretty clear than absolute comes first. Like you say about Tronti, I’m not sure of the importance here. It’s probably more than historical/factual, as Marx makes clear that their nonidentity is only known after the fact, “after the capitalist mode becomes general.” It seems to me that today it’s a political question: absolute and relative are capitalist strategies for extracting surplus value (and probably their only ones) and the proletariat needs to recognize those strategies in order to combat them.
But still, it seems a mistake to assume that these are finished processes, even the foundation of absolute surplus-value extraction, as Marx seems to hint at here. Could this be what Tronti is getting at? Absolute is not, as most Marxists have assumed, a frozen historical fact, but a continous social process? Just a guess. If I’m correct, this relates to D&G’s (and others following them) insistence that primitive accumulation is not a historical accomplishment but a continual goal.
Anyway, this is pretty jumbled and off the cuff. But your use of the word “moment” made me think this could be what Tronti is after.
Comment by Eric — December 28, 2005 @ 6:31 pm
hi Eric,
Where are those quotes from? Is that Capital?
Negri’s formal/real subsumption thing is from the “unpublished sixth chapter” of v1 of Capital, something like the Results of the Immediate Process of Production, it’s published as an appendix to the Penguin edition. I think Marx distinguish formal/real subsumption of labor, Negri turns into subsumption of society. I’ve not finished reading that section yet, but it’s one of the things I don’t like in Negri and perhaps in Marx as well. I just don’t see what’s at stake in the distinctions. I couldn’t agree more with your last paragraph. In my least charitable moments I think that the tendency to fixity, stagism, etc, is part of producing an image of different groups in order to jockey for political position (only the industrial working class can act - and they need our party’s leadership - so shut the fuck up and get behind the banner where you belong). Where do Deleuze and Guattari talk about primitive accumulation? I’d really like to read that.
happy new year,
Nate
Comment by Nate — December 28, 2005 @ 6:49 pm
Yeah, it’s from Capital v1, chapter 16. I don’t see the reason for Marx’s insisting on the distinction either. Maybe someone smarter than me can explain the benefit.
D&G talk about p.a. in Anti-Oedipus, in the chapter on capitalist representation. I’ll see if I can find the quote.
Comment by Eric — December 28, 2005 @ 10:49 pm