My reading of Marx's real and formal subsumption agrees with Jim Divine's. The following is a message I sent to Michael and Tom off-line about specific case that I am working on. Looks like it might be of interest to others, too. ================================= Greetings, If you got other responses suggesting literature, could you please forward to me as well. The situation Tom described is exactly what I am working on in my dissertaion right now. I did my fieldwork in the machining trade in Taiwan. Taiwanese machinists, as well as many other workers, are highly receptive of the idea of becoming an independent enterpreneur. The benefit of "de-alienation" was prompted to me by my informants time and again. Yet in many instances this ideal seems illusory. A colleague of mine works on the traditional carpenters. They are truly in the situation that Tom describes: in full control of their own time and labor process and pretty scornful of the bosses (merchants). Yet the mahcining trade and other decentralized modern industry doesn't appear to be the case. Firstly, the independent machien shops do not sell commoidities. They perform segmentst of the labor process for producing commodities. Milling a groove on a peice of steel, for instance. They can't really sell the groove to anybody on the market except the merchant who brought that peice of steel to their shops. Secondly, while they do control over their (and their one or two hired hands') labor process, the overall process of producing a commodity is in the hands of the merchants. Thirdly, the merchants do have some (although more subdued) authority over the independednt shop owners. They come to the shops, sit on the bench drinking tea all day demanding that his goods be delivered sooner. Thus, in many instacnes, independent machinists complained to me that they are actually still the hired hands of the merchants in some sense. My reading of Marx's "missing chapter" on formal and real subsumption of labor is that this latter conditionis what he means by formal subsumption--a slight departure from the pre-capitalist relations and a step shy of full-fledged capitalist relations, while the case of the carpenters is still petty-commodity production. One interesting fact Marx talks about is that in formal subsumption, labor power is not interchangable, while in real subsumption, they are. In this reagard, those who quit factory job and open their own shop can become worse off because they are tied to the production equipment they bought. Instead of being free to hop from one factory to another seeking higher pay or fleeing from abusive management, the enterpreneur now have to work his/her butt off to make payment for the machine, and absorb most of the losses when the business of his/her choosing is in a market down turn. As Tom observes in Bolivia, Taiwanese workers, especially men, tend to go independent as sson as the first chance arrives. And when their shop go under, they simply go back to the factory and save for the next chance. Some critics of Piore and Sable's Prouhdonian praise of "flexible specialization" point this tendency toward patriarchal ideology. I am not sure this explains a lot. Nor, of course, does P&S's suggestion that the despersed structure is simply more effecient. In Taiwan, the lure of going independent is considered by labor organizers as a big problem. Male workers especially lack pereserverence in union struggles compared to their women coworkers partly because they always consider the proletarian position is trnaistory. I am really curious what does Tom observed about the women workers in Bolivia. Hsin-Hsing Michael Perelman wrote: > Subject: question from Tom in Bolivia > Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 00:23:16 -0400 > From: Tom Kruse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Dear Michael: > > We're working away here on some pretty interesting labor research. As > usual, the fieldwork is incredible, horrific, engaging, at times inspiring. > We were witness to the founidng of a union of knitters here last week, who > against all odds established a legal bargaining unit. All the leaders are > women. > > As usual, too, we have almost no access to literature, and thus are > maddeningly re-inventing wheels, we suspect. Thus, I come to you with a > pretty specialized question for the marxist economists and political > economists. > > I've just reviewed Marx on "formal" vs. "real" subsumption of labor to > capital, the former understood as "...capital [making] use of noncapitalist > modes of production while leaving the means of production in the hands of > the producers and leaving internal processes such as self-explotation and > exploitation of unremunerated family labor in place." (Wilson 1998:7) Real > subsumption is understood as full proletarianization. In the text I > reviewed, Marx gets into the nitty gritty of what is and isn't formal or > real subsumption, with lots of great examples drawn from history and his > own times. > > Very interesting discussion. My initial criticism is of Marx´s suggestion > that most or all forms of formal subsumption are impermanent and > transitional in the move to more all encompassing, real subsumption > (proletarianization). That has cearly not been the case here, where savage > neo-liberal capitalsm both engenders and feeds of those forms Marx called > "formal" subsumption. They may prove to be quite profitable over the long > haul. > > Ironically, people with options to work as "full propletarians" often opt > to work in spheres of only "formal subsumption" (various froms of > "informality", to borrow from straight lingo). From what we are learining, > this can (perhaps) be explained as a search for de-alienation, both in > terms of exercising control over your time and the products of your labor, > and not having an authoritarian running you ragged. However, one persons > "de-alienation" is anothers wage salvery: the same people who might opt out > of full proletarian employment turn around and exploit the heck out of others. > > My point: the conceptual framework seems rich, very promising. > > My query: are there people out there who have used it to look at > manufacturing (or production/work) in the third world today (that is, post > structural adjustment, neo-lib, 1980s and 90s)? Are there any studies out > there that take this approach? I'd sure like to know. > > All the best to you, and many thanks if you could share with the world of > marxist thinkers/progressvie activists. Responses should go to: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Un abrazo! > > Tom > > Tom Kruse > Casilla 5812 / Cochabamba, Bolivia > Tel/Fax: (591-4) 248242, 500849 > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
