Re Jim's most recent comments on this subject, I go back to the bottom line: Jim asserts that some form of subsumption (formal, real, or "macro") is necessary for the extraction of surplus value in Jim's sense of the term. This is a very strong claim. Nobody, certainly not Jim, has established this claim on grounds which do not presuppose the conclusion. Further, the claim is implausible. If it's true, why isn't it the case that interest capitalists must subsume industrial capitalists in order to extract their piece of surplus value in modern capitalism? Similarly, why don't landlords have to subsume industrial capitalists to achieve the same outcome? Finally, contrary to Jim's suggestion, there is indeed a coherent historical-materialist explanation for the possibility of capitalist exploitation via circuits of capital or ground rent which do not presuppose the subsumption of labor under capital. This explanation suggests, in direct opposition to Jim's (unproven) representation, that rendering producers "free in the double sense" (i.e. what Jim calls "macro" subsumption) makes exploitation harder, not easier, because capitalists cannot in that case demand collateral for loans, where they could do so in the era of usury and the putting-out system. Without this "stick", it becomes strategically much harder to get producers to cough up surplus product in return for access to capital. Gil Skillman
