File spoon-archives/marxism-international.archive/marxism-international_1997/marxism-international.9706, message 243


Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 21:47:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: louisgodena-AT-ids.net (Louis R Godena)
Subject: M-I: Notes on Value (forward from moderator)


The following message from Mark Jones <majones-AT-netcomuk.co.uk> bounced to
the moderators (non-member submission).

Louis Godena

______________________________________

                       
>Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 01:52:23 -0700
>From: Mark Jones <majones-AT-netcomuk.co.uk>
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320UK  (Win16; I)
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: marxism-international-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
>Subject: Notes on Value
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
>Notes on Value and Accumulation [1979]
>
>The fundamental law of capitalist equilibrium is this: equilibrium
>depends on the valorisation of surplus value as new capital.
>Even if every possible constraint on the rate of accumulation is
>assumed to be operating maximally, accumulation still has an
>inherent tendency to destroy equilibrium. Time's arrow points in
>one direction.
>Assume a low secular rate of accumulation and technical
>innovation.
>Assume that most surplus value is unproductively consumed
>(luxury production etc.). The rate of accumulation will be
>governed by the rate of innovation (diffusion will be guaranteed
>by competition).
>
>Other things being equal competition will equilibrate the rate of
>productivity increase and the rate of accumulation. Assume that
>such an equilibration has held good in the real history of the 
>capitalist mode of production, so that all its historical crises,
>including imperialist wars, are no more than crises of
>equilibration. 
>
>Is it then possible to postulate a deeper 'teleological' process?
>
>The greater the rate of accumulation, the more technical and
>social capacity capitalism has to create a reserve army of labour.
>This is achieved by concentration, expulsion of live labour from
>production and by cheapening products which constitute the cost
>of variable capital (the wage)- the main means of smashing
>subordinate social formations and 'freeing' new reservoirs of
>proletarianised humanity.
>
>Regardless of the degree of violence and suffering entailed, the
>process will always be successful, its degree and rapidity more or
>less dependent on the rate of accumulation. (The higher the rate
>of accumulation, the more violent and traumatic the process of
>proletarianisation but equally, the more social reserves available
>to capital to bear the political and social on-costs).
>
>Nature of the reserve army of labour:
>
>The creation of a reserve army of labour is the natural correlative
>and consequence of the historical and spatial spread of capitalist
>production. And it is a necessary condition of its existence.
>
>For if capitalist accumulation had leapt fully armed and developed
>from the womb of history, with no need to develop from lower
>to higher forms (manufacture to machinofacture etc.) and
>capable of instantaneously filling the available social and
>geographical space, commoditising social relations so that
>undifferentiated general labour became at once the universal
>norm, and all other dispossessed social classes were subsumed
>into the proletariat, then accumulation would by definition be
>impossible, except on the following conditions:
>
>1. The level of wages remain constant indefinitely (i.e., conditions
>in the labour-market of the fully-employed economy did not
>prevent profit-formation).
>
>2. There was a constant increase in the rate of relative surplus
>value (a constant rate of surplus value would entail the creation
>of unemployment).
>
>These conditions cannot be met. The rate of increase in the rate
>of surplus value would be exponential; the price of stability
>(equilibrium with full employment) would be a constantly
>increasing rate of surplus value, in which the increments to the
>rate of surplus value would feed on themselves.
>
>The reason for this is that the rising organic composition of
>capital means that the profit rate must decline unless the rate of
>relative surplus rises to compensate, and in conditions of
>permanent full employment of the planet's entire proletariat the
>rise in the rate of surplus value must be sufficient of itself  to
>account form any offsetting ris in the organic composition.
>
>The failure to meet these conditions takes the form of uneven
>development- crisis in the form of growing sectoral imbalances,
>with over-production and underconsumption existing siding by
>side; these sectoral imbalances appear as the result of inadequate
>technology, too low rate of innovation etc. (e.g. magnificent
>productivity and output quality of Mercedes-Benz, but overall
>car production technology too poor to satisfy real human
>demand for mobility, or to reduce the cost of variable capital by
>reducing transport costs).
>
>Thus, overproduction of Mercedes cars.
>
>Inevitably, therefore, capitalist accumulation is accompanied by
>the creation of a reserve army of labour; the fault seems to be in
>the low rate of technical change and the generally-inadequate
>level of technology, registering in sectoral disequilibria (law of
>uneven development).
>
>But in fact, the higher the rate of technical change and
>productivity growth the worse the problems become, because
>there is no optimal level of technique in production which can
>allow for permanent equilibrium and full employment.
>
>Capitalist accumulation depends for its existence on a low level of
>productivity and technology and historically-low levels of
>accumulation. Low productivity, historically inadequate
>technology and low rate of surplus value are the obverse of
>profis, surplus value and accumulation.
>
>This in itself specifies the essentially transitional nature of
>capitalist society.
>
>'The mode of production of society, which expresses its
>existential needs, is its constitutive historical basis from which its
>historical movement unfolds': Marcuse
>
>Adorno and Hegel initiated and repeated this.
>
>What is the class nature of machinery and technology?
>
>Horkheimer and Adorno in Dialectic of Enlightenment (mid-
>1940s) identified bourgeois domination at the level of an all-
>pervasive 'instrumental reason' whose 'adequate form' was the
>factory system.
>
>Hegel in Phenomenology of Mind refers to the "object"
>(Gegenstand) and "objectivity" (Gegenst=E4ndlichkeit) but not to
>the "objectification" (Vergegenst=E4ndlichung) which Marx
>deployed in the 1844 Manuscripts as the crucial step in
>"inverting" Hegel and so clearing the way for the discussion of
>material production,  production as a social process of object
>ification.
>
>Through the medium of objectivity the mind returns to itself,
>becoming for itself: this is the essence of the Hegelian dialectic
>(c.f. Kantian dialectic of transcendental subject and object).
>
>The object exists as a stage in the self-production of Mind. 
>
>Thus for Hegel "objectivity" carries the negative significance of
>being the "other" of Mind, an "other" which is to undergo self-
>transcendence (to be  "sublated" (aufgehoben in the Hegelian
>terminology).
>
>For Marx, the object-world is primary; the autonomous existence
>of objects makes possible the process of objectification, when, in
>the process of social-production, use-values acquire a social
>form as value: they objectify a social relation.
>
>Objectification is a social rather than an aprioristic or solipsistic
>process. 
>
>Oositing of objects by the mind - Hegel.
>
>Note: 1844 Mss were first published in Germany in 1932 (!)
>
>Necessary to consider Hegel's version of the "object", which has
>the significance of -- that which stands over and against Mind
>("Gegen-stand" = "against-Mind").
>
>'For Hegel, "object" is not just house, chair, etc., but any
>supposed "object" of a supposed "subject": as it is stripped of
>this fetishistic appearance, the "object" of Mind  turns, through
>many moments, from the house of sense-certainty to the God of
>religion, and finally the "object" turns (back) into Mind, which
>recognises its other as in truth itself, thereby sublating "other-
>ness" altogether. In this sense, "objectification" is itself
>sublated' .
>
>Marx first uses the term "objectification" in the 1844 MSS , and
>does so in the non-Hegelian sense of the objectification of
>labour. Hegel comes near this in his section on Lordship and
>Bondage. When he uses the derivative fremd (alien) to
>characterise the relation of bondsman to lord: the bondsman's
>consciousness 'trembles' (zittert) before 'the alien, external reality'
>(das fremde Wesen) and in labour is confronted with an 'alien 
>meaning' (fremder Sinn) . In Soviet Marxism Marcuse moves
>towards a convergence theory of the blocs: both participate in
>the 'general trend of technical progress', which is progress
>towards domination over both the natural world and the human
>intersubjectivity (reduced to a social 'one-dimensionality'):
>
>Not only the application of technology but technology itself is
>domination (of nature and men) - methodical, scientific,
>calculated, calculating control. Scientific purposes and interests
>are not foisted upon technology 'subsequently' and from the
>outside; they enter the very construction of the technical
>apparatus .
>
>>From this Marcuse concludes that it has become an ideological
>absurdity to speak of advanced capitalist society being 'pregnant'
>with socialism.
>
>Notes on war and crisis
>
>The function of war as the mechanism of unblocking logjammed
>accumulation processes, is fundamental.
>
>International competition at both economic and political levels is
>merely the appearance form of the accumulation process. The
>barriers to accumulation are in every crisis of a twofold and
>apparently opposite nature. On one side the TRPF [the Law of
>the Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall] results from basic
>technical inadequacies in the social division of labour (some of
>whose output effects are a combination of logjams and sectoral
>overproduction (unrealisable new value) which all serves to
>indicate new directions (outlets) for capital-flows and to mitigate
>the rising organic composition of capital.
>
>The problem of sectoral overproduction is particularly visible and
>leads to ideological resonances in the workers movement -- this
>is to do with the 'cornucopia' effects of capitalist production, its
>technical boundlessness and purely social limitations.
>
>Such perceptions are entirely illusory; sectoral overproduction is
>the direct consequence of technical (not social) limitations. Such
>limitations can be of a systemic, basic nature. (e.g.
>overproduction of cars in the west is an index of the inefficiency
>and low technical level of transport systems in general, in the
>given historico-geographical contexts).
>
>Thus the primary problem is the inadequacy of the productivity of
>labour and/or capital. Of course this inadequacy- which is
>fundamental to and in a sense defines the nature of capitalism,
>has an iterative, cyclical nature in which cause and effects are
>interactive.
>
>This iterative 'stasis' is itself a factor leading to crises, which
>represent the explosive resolution of problems which endlessly
>compounded themselves, as inefficiencies in one place led to
>stagnation in another which reinforced the original inefficiency.
>There is an immanent circularity about the processes of science,
>the inadequate, one-sided development of technology and
>production, labour indiscipline, inflation etc.
>
>Notes on overproduction
>
>Crisis is the result of both under- and over-production. Crises
>result from the overdevelopment of productive forces, technique,
>productivity etc. relative to the overall social structure,
>development of credit, banks, markets, distribution, of states, of
>physical-resource inputs, all the constraining capital-flows, the
>circuits of production/realisation.
>
>Result is overcapacity, falling plant utilisation levels etc.,
>coinciding with shortages and bottlenecks, both in the labour
>markets (chronic shortage of skilled labour etc.), producer goods
>and other industries. These secondary effects both compound
>and protract the crisis, actually making it less explosive.
>
>The absolute overproduction of capital (inability of capital to
>valorise) means that the productive power of capital and labour
>has increased to a point where it cannot continue to produce at
>all unless this same productive capacity is further sharply
>increased.
>
>The problem [crisis] is faced now by the total social capital and
>[it] is one of the average rate of surplus value- no longer just the
>leading sectors. That is why the crisis is universal and general,
>becoming the factor which constitutes capital as a social totality.
>
>Increasing productivity depresses the average rate of profit
>especially when confined to leading sectors. The economists tend
>to identify as causes such things as inflexibility in investment
>decisions, lack of venture capital, slow innovations, immobility
>of labour etc.; but these are all secondary questions, not
>fundamental.
>
>Notes on wars
>
>Wars are the ultimate remedy available to capitalism for
>unblocking the accumulation process.
>
>Marx, especially Engels, and Lenin identify this as a fundamental
>characteristic of later capitalism and of imperialism. But the
>systemic need for war forces a qualitative inner transformation
>when war becomes impossible. From this point on, the
>constraints and limitations on national sovereignty mean that,
>while appearing to display historical continuity with an earlier
>period when  inter-imperialist rivalry was the dominant
>appearance-form of capitalist reproduction, sovereignty is
>nonetheless transformed.
>
>Note on socialist accumulation
>
>there  is  no  such   thing   as   autonomous  socialist
>accumulation. It has  always  taken  the form either of primary
>accumulation, which  means  catching up by means of the
>planned [NB, significance of this for the concept of planning, and
>debates on teleological, indicative etc. planning] deployment of
>capitalist science and technology or it means a form of
>competition with the imperialist world, in which therefore the
>accumulation process of socialism, including accumulation of
>science & tech, is over-determined by its imbrication into the
>global process of value-production, whatever superficially
>planned form it may take in the socialist countries themselves.
>
>This does not mean that planning & accumulation are
>incompatible, or any other stupid value-judgment about the
>'inadequacy' etc. of socialism, planning etc.
>
>But it means that the global accumulation process has not
>ascended historically to the level where it can be directly human-
>determined. But at the same time, the meaning of 'transition' is
>that the law of value is also suspended by the competition of
>capitalism with socialism.
>
>Accumulation has become hypertrophied in the post-1917 period,
>first in the hypertrophied form of militarised accumulation whose
>objective was war, second in the hypertrophied form of
>militarised accumulation whose objective was war-avoidance.
>Capitalism has become permanent crisis, or rather, sublated
>crisis, permanent absence of crisis and permanent presence of
>pre-crisis symptoms.
>
>Value in its pure form has never existed, historically.
>Accumulation has always been dependent on plunder, state
>action, war etc. But the suspension of precisely those factors (in
>an absolute, not relative sense) undermines the working of value
>even while it converts the appearance-forms into a more explicit
>palimpsest or ersatz model of value, i.e., the failure to debouch
>in wars leads to e.g. credit crises a more abstractly-classical
>character. But the real content is voided; the very failure of
>crises to mature properly reacts back upon and vitiates the
>working of the law of value.
>
>Socialism on a world scale implies the termination of
>accumulation, but termination as a process: process of socialist
>construction. Why will socialist accumulation take place at all?
>To take the most obvious question, why will it not collapse into
>bureaucratic stagnation, in the absence of competing nations,
>classes, capitals etc.? For e.g., how would the whole
>development of microelectronics, so crucial to the future, have
>occurred in the absence of such competition? The short answer is
>because the  self-evident problems left by capitalism will dictate a
>necessary and urgent programme of recovery and development,
>which will have a dynamic of its own, however temporary (but
>decades rather than years).
>
>And this programme will have the inevitable eventual outcome of
>a supersession of phenotype-based life-worlds, and of DNA-
>based life. Termination of the mortality of the phenotype-
>consciousness. Beyond this development, all speculation about
>the meaning of accumulation, of any variety, is pointless.
>
>Elson book
>
>Jairus Banaji
>
>In Elson, Diane (ed) [1979] Value: the Representation of Labour
>in Capital (London: CSE Books), pps 14-45: 'There are
>countless references to the problems of scientific method
>scattered across the pages of Marx's later work ... there is the
>methodological reference that is basic to any understanding of
>the architecture of "Capital", namely, the distinction Marx
>repeatedly draws between 'capital in general' and 'many capitals'.
>The former refers to the 'inner nature' of capital, to its 'essential
>character'(Grundrisse p.414) and is also called 'the simple
>concept of capital' (ibid.); by contrast, 'many capitals or
>competition of capitals, entails a study of capital 'in its reality'.
>(Grundrisse, p.684, note), or in its 'concrete' aspects as they
>appear reflected on the surface of society, in the 'actual
>movement' of capitals (Cap, III [1959, Moscow] p.25)'  [17]
>
>BLPG [Brighton Labour Process Group, Conference of Socialist
>Economists, moderator, Robin Murray, rapporteur, Barbara
>Bradby]
>
>minutes of 27/1/77
>
>Christian Palloix in some paper has a concept of core/context.
>
>Valorisation and the capitalist labour process the core, taking
>place within the context of accumulation, and its facets
>contextual (world economy, relation between departments,
>relations with the socialist economies, with the state, between
>the branches and fractions of capital).
>The sort of question asked within this problematic is: what are the
>conditions within the territory of accumulation which  lead to
>capitalist control in the labour process taking the form of neo-
>Fordism (c.f. labour process as the real 'heart of the economy').
>
>C.f. [K.Marx] Resultate. [991]
>
>BLPG say (but couldn't seem to agree on) that the labour process
>of capital-in-general is simultaneously accumulation and
>valorisation, just as it is simultaneously the production of use-
>values and exchange-values.
>
>'Accumulation and its contradictory, indissoluble relation with
>valorisation'. Compares 'abstract labour process' [?] with 'some
>of the more concrete aspects of accumulation (imperialism, the
>state etc.). [Murray]
>
>Single circuit/extended circuit (in time) [no such thing in reality,
>surely?] Valorisation concerned with production of surplus
>value, accumulation with the conditions for the expanded
>reproduction of the process of valorisation. [it's right to point to
>role of the state etc., but wrong to do so on the basis of a
>distinction between 'accumulation' and 'expanded reproduction',
>which are merely 2 forms of words describing the same thing. ]
>
>The point about 'departments': one of the requirements for
>expanded reproduction is that there are the correct proportions
>between departments I & II. All this has some value, but is
>splitting hairs and indicates inability to see real and overriding
>import of accumulation as the fundamental process.  'Any
>process is simultaneously a process of production of surplus
>value and part of the reproduction of the total social capital'. But
>equally, individual processes are merely moments within the total
>process, aliquot part of a single social capital which is capital-in-
>general. see Resultate, [1061], Grundrisse [399, 604-10]. Law of
>population. On the material (use-value) side of accumulation:
>issues are the concentration of capital, and creation of a reserve
>army. Surplus population. On the exchange-value side, see the
>consequences of machinofacture reflected in rising organic
>composition of capital, limits to wages governed by self-
>expansion of capital.
>
>Dominance of capitalism in process of accumulation: no natural
>law of population. Capitalism produces its own. Wages not
>governed by natural law (subsistence) but moves between limits
>set by the process of capitalaccumulation. See KM on Malthus.
>
>Accumulation often used for expanded reproduction. Chap 25,
>vol I Capital.
>
>Marx on accumulation according to RM [Robin Murray]
>
>KM establishes drive to machinofacture as the adequate form for
>self-expansion of cap, through increases in relative surplus value,
>follows through this tendency to other spheres: rising organic
>composition of capital, concentration and centralisation,,
>increase in no. of workers & reserve army; circulation:
>fixed/circulating capital, problem bet departments; total process:
>value/price formation & tension bet, TRPF [tendency of profit-
>rate to rise] , rise & expansion of credit.
>
>All these are elaborations of rise of machinofacture. Rising
>organic composition of capital, TRPF, rise of credit, problems of
>reserve army, expansion of credit are all indicators of the drive to
>machinofacture, towards reducing necessary and including
>surplus labour. Take any appearance, says KM,: interest, rent,
>fixed and circulating capital- and I will show how they are all
>derived from value arising in production.
>
>Accumulation then is a mapping from the sphere of expanded
>reproduction of the capital/labour relation in production
>(consequence of machinofacture) to the social whole. Extension
>of surplus/necessary labour contradiction arising in production to
>the spheres of circulation, extension of reserve army etc. Latter
>phenomenon needs care in treatment: labour is inducted from
>peripheries and pre-capitalist modes, etc., and also question of
>role of family, women etc.
>
>BLPG [Brighton Labour Process Group] on capitalist
>accumulation:
>
>-- They start from the labour process and tendency to
>machinofacture. RM [Robin Murray] emphasises material basis
>for rising organic composition of capital and technical
>composition.
>
>Why does capitalism seek to replace people with machines?  All
>to do with the economy of time, with increasing productivity,
>and the fact that increasing relative surplus value by introducing
>machinery to substitute for workers does not increase the value
>of living labour in relation to the value of material elements in
>production.
>
>The question becomes, not whether organic composition of
>capital is rising, but why it does not rise faster? Why is there any
>human labour in production at all? Obviously this to do with the
>value of machinery: it has to require less socially-necessary
>labour time than that currently expended in the production
>process itself.
>
>This in itself is a counter-tendency to rising organic composition
>of capital and a dampener on the rate of accumulation.
>Technically production could be more automated than it is, but
>because it is a value system, the technical potential is not realised
>in conditions where the only result would be an increase in
>general social productivity.
>
>The substitution of machines for live labour will only occur if
>another condition holds as well, i.e., when the value of
>machinery deployed is less than the value of the live labour it
>replaces. Because of this v[alue] will have to fall by more than
>c[apital] increases. And this is true on a social and not merely on
>an individual level. For the organic composition of capital is
>merely the relation of necessary and surplus labour written at the
>level of total social capital.
>
>Thus the potential range of transformation of materials as against
>the limits of human labour power ensures that the rise in organic
>composition of capital is possible and likely. The fact of value
>analysis within firms ensures that only technical change which
>increases organic composition of capital will be implemented.
>
>-- development of machinofacture
>
>At each stage, industrialised capital internalises a new part of the
>economy and runs up against new limits, limits which appear in
>the form of the market, and in the form of one stratum of labour.
>Systemofacture and the development of machinofacture in the
>processing and communicating of information is the latest stage
>of the development of machinofacture. We must outline the
>material economies brought about by these developments: saving
>faux frais, gains from greater specialisation/division of labour.
>
>Consequences of development of Systemofacture:
>
>science & its separation [?]
>
>technical/clerical labour
>
>neo-Fordism
>
>extension of the economic  'range' of firms
>
>-- the main issue in accumulation:
>
>the contradiction between direct socialisation of labour, and value
>[?!], or put another way, collective labour/the market. The
>market is simultaneously the determining discipline on capital
>(the bearer of the law of value) and a barrier (circulation involves
>delay, faux frais, alien property of other capitals cannot be
>directly co-ordinated).
>
>Capital, in trying to surpass this barrier (horizontal and vertical
>integration) creates new tensions for there is now a larger
>collectivised worker, directly planned and synchronised, which
>makes even more severe demands on general social
>synchronisation, the appearance of commodities on the market in
>the right place, correct quantities, right time (kanban) - whether
>these be labour or material inputs. Capital in surpassing the
>barrier of the anarchy of capitalist production poses it again at a
>higher, more sever level.
>
>The contradiction is plan/market, capitalist plan/capitalist market.
>
>Consider from point of view of reproduction of the material
>conditions of everyday life. The market at first progressive vis a
>vis pre-capitalist forms of social synthesis. But from viewpoint of
>capital as planned synchronisation of collective labour, the
>market is utterly inadequate. This due to alien property [?],
>imperfections in information, of time and costs of circulation.
>Each step forward in machinofacture can be read as the
>internalising of the functions of the market within an individual
>capital: thus it involves the direct socialisation of labour, i.e.
>removal of the market and commodities as bearers of
>commensuration process.
>
>But the market remains indispensable to capital. For value is its
>raison d'=EAtre. Labour itself will always remain a commodity, and
>surplus value will always have to be realised on the market. Just
>as labour is a barrier to capital; (which tries to expel it from
>production) but is the source of value, so the market is a barrier
>and a necessity.
>
>-- contradictions of Systemofacture:
>
>growing problem of applying value to the internal, collective
>economy of capital. To a degree it exercises still more effective
>discipline in the new economy: core/periphery working-class,
>desegregated combines with inter-departmental pricing
>throughout, management buy-outs complementing growing role
>of finance and venture capital, computers to do forecasts,
>shadow-pricing, better information, communication, cutting
>transport costs, expelling labour, reducing costs of fixed capital
>at same time. On the other hand, general problem of relating
>science to production, of making science a 'direct force of
>production'.
>
>-- state-form and accumulation
>
>it helps produce items with low marginal costs, or low organic
>composition of capital and not given to machinofacture
>(domestic labour etc.). Effects co-ordination and synchronisation
>of expanded reproduction.  Provision of services geared to
>control of labour. Ideological functions. Problem of disjunction
>of state/world market; capital extends internally as part of
>process of establishing a collective labourer at its highest level.
>Problem however of disjunction between territorial states and
>scope of international capital (50% US production outside US,
>30% of world capitalist production by ?100 TNCs, etc.).
>Capital's drive to establish reproduction of capital on a world
>scale, and collective worker likewise. Impact on purely national
>politics, social democracy etc.
>
>Should consider nature of world market, division of labour,
>disposition of population, urbanisation etc.
>
>-- MJ note on state-form:
>
>The state is a particular form of the capital-relation, a form of the
>universality of this relation, whose function is to secure the
>universal conditions of existence of the reproduction of this
>relation. This latter not a static but a dynamic process depending
>on successful valorisation of capital. Reproduction is both of
>value and use-value which together constitute capital relation.
>The use-value of capital of is the totality of accumulated live and
>dead labour. Valorisation process consists of the use of this use-
>value. Reproduction of social capital (creation of new value) is
>through the consumption of the the use-value of capital; the the
>use-value of capital is therefore the presupposition for
>reproduction.
>
>
>Bibliography
>Hegel, G.W.F. [1970] Werke vol III (Frankfurt-am-Main,
>Suhrkamp)
>Hegel, G.W.F. [1971] The Phenomenology of Mind (London,
>Allen and Unwin)
>Marcuse, Herbert  [1968] Negations: Essays in Critical Theory
>(London, Allen Lane The Penguin Press)
>Marcuse, Herbert [1958] Soviet Marxism
>Marx, Karl and Engels, Frederick [1975] Collected Works Vol.
>III (London, Lawrence and Wishart)
>Slater, Phil [1977] Herbert Marcuse and the Analysis of the
>Labour Process (unpub)
>
>Footnotess [omitted]
>
>



     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005