thanks for this. (the bit on criminals being productive is a hoot, isn't it?)
Doug Henwood wrote:
> But the productive/nonproductive distinction is of limited
> relevance to how workers lead their lives and think of themselves
>
maybe so. but this should lead us to the conclusion that the designation 'working class' (as marx used it) is not vested with a moral force - whihc should at least embarass claims that to be a member of the working class is anything to boast about... nor is it about designating hierarchies of who (in and identity sense) is more oppressed. me thinks it is a - admittedly complex - claim that capitalism is founded upon and dependant upon wage labour, hence this makes wage labourers decisive for capital formation. i guess butler would see the working class as always marked by this relation, a la the dialectic. which raises the constant question of whether or not the dialectic is little more than repetition. i don't think it is, but was wondering if there is anyone here who is inclined to this view. i'm not ruling out the question, since it raises what are important issues, and not ones that have any easy answers.
also, anyone else particularly taken - as i am - by marx's stuff on real and formal subsumption (see below)?:
> MARX EXCERPTS
>
> [from the Appendix to Capital, vol. 1, Penguin edition, p. 1044]
>
> But for the most
> part, work of this sort has scarcely reached the stage of being subsumed
> even formally under capital, and belongs essentially to a transitional
> stage.
angela