> In that discussion, the assumption is that working people play along
> -- that they are fragmented and plaint. However, in actual capitalist
> societies, workers resist and fight in different ways, at different
> levels of intensity, organization, etc., and the outcomes of those
> struggles differ. So, in actual capitalist societies, what is
> "productive" is not just what capital deems productive. What is
> "productive" is subject to dispute.
Not to speak for Angelus, because I don't know his exact views on this, but for some of the people that he at least has sympathies for -- thinking of Principia Dialectica and some other Postone acolytes -- what you write here is irrelevant because for them capital is *the* subject. I'm also sympathetic to this in some ways -- mostly because of the refusal to insist on proletarianization -- but not with their bracketing of struggle and social exigencies, that is, of everything that doesn't produce Value. It seems like laboratory Marxism to me.
> I wrote about my interpretation of Marx's views on "productive labor" here:
I need to read it again, but on first read, I like it.