Tom wrote:>>> So for the autonomists, the "fetters" and crisis are manifestations of the working class struggle and it is capital's effort to overcome this resistence by workers that leads to new forms of the labor process.<<<
I wrote: >> Right. But the fetters also reflect capitalists' attempts to maintain power<< CC: >O.K. It as a general law of history that "fettering" becomes (or can become) a technological determinism. But if it is seen as specific to the capitalist mode of production, then the objection doesn't apply. I presume that there can still be debate, but this perspective does answer my initial phrasing of the objection.< I don't understand. "Fettering" simply refers to socio-economic restrictions on technological change (or more generally, change in the forces of production). It refers to workers resisting speed-up and the like and also capitalists and others defending their privileges. There's technological determinism if the clash between the development of the forces and the social structure leads to a specific result that depends on only the technology. But it also depends on between-class and intra-class struggles. Further, the development of the forces of production itself depends on the nature of the society that generates that development. If the "determiner" is itself determined, there's hardly any determinism. > If it is made a general law of history it can't explain why still in the 18th century textile productivity in non-capitalist India was so much greater than in capitalist England.< Even the crudest practitioner of "histomat" knows the answer: India had a head-start in that sector. However, England had the military might. JD I don't understand. Jim Devine, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine/
