----------- Thank you much for the very clear exposition.
I'm not really sure that I buy the primacy of immaterial labor. For one thing, so much of it is so unnecessary.
I qualify as immaterial labor -- being a tech writer, which I generally describe as "digging ditches with my brain." The only diff I can tell between what I do and what a material laborer does, is that what I do is much harder to measure, which means that I have the opportunity to slack off. For example, I have a couple of deadlines a year. If I make the deadlines and no one complains about my books, I've done a good enough job. The superexploitation means that my manager will not have the time to read my book and nor will the engineers, except in pieces. So, I can elect to do the minimum, or even less if circumstances dictate.
I've worked with and talked to immaterial workers most of my working life, and my basic sense is that they are pretty much sick of it. For one thing, they are often asked to do their best in crappy conditions. For another, there are no more raises. Rewards have been few a far between for a good ten years. And I'm talking the BIG companies. Even the hardest working, most professional, most dedicated of the programmers I know feel this way. It's a huge difference from even fifteen years ago.
So, I dunno. Managing immaterial workers is much trickier than managing material workers. Especially because so much of the quality of what they produce is at their discretion.
Joanna