The Concept of Subsumption of Labour to Capital: Towards the Life Subsumption in Bio-Cognitive Capitalism

This file is to be used only for a purpose specified by Palgrave Macmillan, such as checking proofs, preparing an index, reviewing, endorsing or planning coursework/other institutional needs. You may store and print the file and share it with others helping you with the specified purpose, but under no circumstances may the file be distributed or otherwise made accessible to any other third parties without the express prior permission of Palgrave Macmillan. Please contact rights@palgrave.com if you have any queries regarding use of the file. PROOF 13 The Concept of Subsumption of Labour to Capital: Towards the Life Subsumption in Bio-Cognitive Capitalism Andrea Fumagalli 1. Introduction In the last forty years, the current process of capitalist accumulation and valorization has assumed different names1 : the most common of these, post-Fordism, is also the oldest. The term post-Fordism became popular during the 1990s, especially through the French école de la régulation.2 This term, however, is not without its ambiguities and diverse interpretations, as are all terms that are defined in a negative way. With the term post-Fordism we define the period, from the 1975 crisis to the early 1990s crisis, during which the process of accumulation and valorization was no longer based on the centrality of Fordist material production, the vertically integrated, large factory. At the same time, in this period, we do not yet possess an alternative paradigm. Unsurprisingly, in the prefix “post-” we express what is no longer there, without underlining what actually appears in the present. The post-Fordist phase is, in fact, characterized by the conjoined presence of more productive models: from the Japanese Toyotist model of the ‘ “just in time” derived from Taylorism3 to the industrial district model of small enterprises4 and the development of productive lines that tend to become international according to a hierarchy.5 Among these models, it is still impossible to identify a hegemonic paradigm. After the first Gulf War, innovations in the fields of transportation, language and communication (ICT) started to gather around a new single paradigm of accumulation and valorization. 224 July 25, 2015 19:9 MAC/EFISH Page-224 9781137478566_14_cha13 PROOF Andrea Fumagalli 225 The new capitalist configuration tends to identify in “knowledge” and “space” (geographic and virtual) as commodities a new foundation for dynamic skills of accumulation. As a consequence, two new dynamic economies of scale are formed, which are the basis for the growth in productivity (or, the source of surplus-value): learning economies and network economies. The first are connected to the process of generation and the creation of new knowledge (based on new systems of communication and information technologies); the second derive from the organizational modalities of each district (territorial networks or system areas), which are no longer used for production and distribution only, but increasingly as a vehicle of diffusion (and control) of knowledge and technological progress. We can name this paradigm of accumulation cognitive capitalism6 : The term capitalism designates the permanence, though metamorphic, of the fundamental variables of the capitalistic system: the leading role of profit, and the wage system in particular, or more precisely, the different forms of employed labour from which surplus value is extracted. The attribute cognitive evidences the new nature of labour, of the sources of valorization and property structure, on which the process of accumulation is founded, and the contradictions that this 90 mutation generates.7 The centrality of learning and network economies, typical of cognitive capitalism, is put into question at the beginning of the new millennium, following the bursting of the Internet economy bubble and its speculations, in March 2000. The new cognitive paradigm alone is unable to protect the socio-economic system from the structural instability that characterizes it. It is also necessary for new liquidity to be directed into the financial markets. The ability of financial markets to generate “value” is tied to the development of “conventions” (speculative bubbles) which can create somewhat homogeneous expectations, thereby pushing the main financial operators to support certain types of financial activities.8 What the Internet economy did in the 1990s was followed in the 2000s by the great attraction to the development of Asian markets (China entered the WTO in December 2001) and real estate. Today, the focus is mostly on the performance of European welfare states. Independently of the dominant convention, contemporary capitalism is always in search of new social and vital circles to absorb and commodify, increasingly involving the bare vital faculties of human beings. July 25, 2015 19:9 MAC/EFISH Page-225 9781137478566_14_cha13 PROOF 226 Productivity in Reproduction It is for this reason that over the course of the past few years we have been hearing about bioeconomy and biocapitalism.9 In recent years this tendency has been particularly emphasized by the spread of the so-called “social media” (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and similar sites), whose consumption shows how it is difficult to find a clear separation between productive and unproductive activity (in terms of the production of wealth). More and more, leisure, game and otium (in the Latin sense) converge towards form of labour.10 At this point, the reader should clearly understand how the term used in these pages is nothing but the contraction between cognitive capitalism and biocapitalism: bio-cognitive capitalism is the phrase that defines contemporary capitalism. 2. Formal subsumption and real subsumption in Marx Capitalist exploitation is described by Marx with two different forms of subsumption:11 formal and real, as the outcome of the historical evolution of capitalism and the continuous metamorphosis of the capital–labour ratio. Those two forms of subsumption refer to two different concepts of surplus-value: absolute and relative. According to Marx, the stage of the formal subsumption of labour to capital is characterized by the prevalence of absolute surplus-value. The real subsumption instead is associated with the extraction of relative surplus-value. The historical period of formal subsumption corresponds to the period of pre-industrial capitalism that leads up to the threshold of the Industrial Revolution and the first craft capitalism, in which the exploitation of labour and its submission to the capital takes place “on the basis of a pre-existing labour process”.12 In this context, the surplus-value origins from the extensification of labour through the continued lengthening of daily working time: I call absolute surplus value the surplus value produced by prolongation of the labour day.13 The first stage of capitalism can therefore be read as the stage in which the production activity is not affected by a strong acceleration of technological progress, except for the period of the industrial revolution at the end of XVIII century, which marks the widespread introduction of machines and relatively affects the “know-how” of the workers. However, what it is structurally certified at this stage of formal subsumption July 25, 2015 19:9 MAC/EFISH Page-226 9781137478566_14_cha13 PROOF Andrea Fumagalli 227 is the gradual, more or less violent, transition towards the figure of the artisan labourer. With this step, the artisan loses its autonomy of selfemployed to be transformed on salaried employee of the capital, while partially maintaining unchanged its labour performance (salarization). The extraction of absolute surplus-value, however, meets an insurmountable limit: 24 hours a day. The prolongation of the working days cannot be such as to endanger the reproduction of the labour-force, as well as the slave, although wholly owned by the master, needed to be maintained. In the first half of the XIX century some legislative limits on work-time are thus introduced: labour time cannot exceed 10 hours, with further limits as far as labour-time for women and children is concerned It is necessary to find new ways to extract surplus labour and increase the surplus-value. Thus, the stage of real subsumption of labour to capital is going to begin. At the stage of formal subsumption, the capitalist system of production proceeded in the direction of extensification of labour activity, towards a greater control of the capital. To this aim, it is possible to work in two ways: a. the prolongation of the working day up to the maximum limit allowed by the need to guarantee the reproduction of the labour-force and b. the salarization of the greater amount of labour possible, in presence of a given labour organization. The term salarization is nothing more than the other face of the concept of productive labour. Just because – let’s not forget – labour is formally a freely exchanged and paid commodity, labour-force is productive only when it generates surplus-value.14 The extension of productive labour through its monetary salarization, is complementary to the extension of the working day. These two aspects of formal subsumption of labour to capital are the starting points of the beginning of capitalism and, at the same time, the arrival point of the primitive accumulation.15 With the transition to real subsumption, the process of exploitation and extraction of surplus-value passes from the extensification to the intensification of the labour process. This transition takes place through a succession of three different models of organization.16 The initial simple cooperation, typical of the first phase of pre-capitalist formal subsumption, gives place to the s.c. manufacture system of the late XVIII century, in which labour still has a formal self-organization and the worker uses his own tools, albeit in an increasingly exclusive status and in confined areas. It is the stage described by Adam Smith,17 when the simple cooperation changes its configuration and transforms July 25, 2015 19:9 MAC/EFISH Page-227 9781137478566_14_cha13 PROOF 228 Productivity in Reproduction itself in the division of labour, with the aim to decompose artisan activity in different and heterogeneous operations, each of which is permanently assigned to individual workers. The stage of manufacture system of the mid-XIX century, then, turns in the third organizational model which Marx calls the factory, where there is no more specialization and the worker is forced by the “machine” to perform monotonous operations throughout the entire labour day. The worker becomes so completely servant (enslaved to) of the machine, by reducing himself to a body that acts without thinking. It is in this transformation that the transition to the real subsumption of labour to capital takes place. The extraction of surplus-value (now, relative) is thus determined by the increase of the intensification of the pace dictated by the speed of the machines. This intensification (what economists call “labour productivity”) is designed to shorten the socially required labour time for the reproduction of the same labour-force. The result is to allow a greater volume of output, surplus-labour and then surplusvalue. It is with the rise of the factory system that time becomes the measure of labour and the socially labour time emerges as a central factor. Thus, the chronometer, as a means to quantify the economic value of labour and prescribe the modes, becomes, together with the mechanization, the essence of economic and cultural changes of the work determined by the industrial revolution and the fundamental characteristics of real subsumption. In this way, labour becomes more abstract, not only in the form of exchange value, but also in its content, devoid of any intellectual quality and creative element.18 In other words, the subsumption of labour to capital becomes real when it happens within the production process and not just from the outside. It is dictated by the technology and by the externalization (with respect to the collective worker) of the knowledge (now embodied in the machines), which is at the basis of the division of labour and permits the productive coordination and co-operation. The constraint to wage labour is not only monetary, but also technological, endogenized by technical progress. In this way, the individual labour of the worker, increasingly reduced to mere living appendage to the machine system, “it is not in itself of no use if it is not sold to the capital”.19 The transition from the formal to the real subsumption changes the relationship between labour-force and machines, or between living and July 25, 2015 19:9 MAC/EFISH Page-228 9781137478566_14_cha13 PROOF Andrea Fumagalli 229 dead labor, that is, between constant and variable capital. We can describe this process as a transformation of the relationship between knowledge (learning) and labour. In the formal subsumption, the craftsman turned into waged employee, still retaining control, albeit partial, of its labour capacity (know-how). What is alienated is the use-value, but not his professionalism. The capital is able to valorise itself only ex post. In the real subsumption – which reaches its maximum level with the development of the Tayloristic labour organization – the knowledge and the ability to work are totally expropriated by capital and embodied in the constant capital. Hence, we are witnessing the transition of knowledge from living to dead labour (machinery). The capital now tends to self-valorise. It’s up to this transition that the main dichotomies arise, able to stiffen the Taylorist production system: between manual and intellectual labour, and between work time and leisure time. From those, other dichotomies unravel, such as that between production and reproduction/consumption or between productive and unproductive labour (which assumes, socially, the forms of a gender division). This latter division is the basis of the Taylorist accumulation process, up to innervate also the social structure so as to regulate it in a disciplinary and rigid way. The division of labour innervates the social hierarchies and affects education structure. In fact, it is based on the separation between manual and intellectual labour and between productive and unproductive labour. Summarizing, the real subsumption allows the industrial capitalism to encompass the whole of society, through the generalization of the wage relation and of exchange-value, with profound effects on the habits and mode of life of employees. With the development of the Fordist paradigm of production and the stage of real subsumption, capital accumulation based on production material reaches its apogee. The Smithian division of labour, outcome of the fragmentation of labour tasks, extends to its maximum. 3. Towards the life subsumption With the crisis of the Fordist paradigm, that is the crisis of the real subsumption based on material production, a transition starts to the present days, where we see a shift from the production of money by means of commodities: (M-C-M’) to the production of money by means of knowledge and relational activities [C(k)]: [M-C(k)-M’], with structural effects on the mode of production and on the valorization process (bio-cognitive capitalism). July 25, 2015 19:9 MAC/EFISH Page-229 9781137478566_14_cha13 PROOF 230 Productivity in Reproduction We are entering a new phase of subsumption of labor to capital, where at the same time formal subsumption and real subsumption tend to merge and feed off one each other. Today we can still talk of formal subsumption of labor to capital when labour activity refers to the ability and to relational learning processes that the individual worker holds on the basis of his experience of life. These are skills that that are partially completed in a period prior to time of their use for the production of exchange-value. The learning and the relationship, initially, arise as use-values and, such as tools and manual skills of the artisans of the first pre-tayloristic stage of capitalist, are then “salarized”, obtorto collo,20 and formally subsumed in the production of exchange-value. Mass education and the development of a diffuse intellectuality make the educational system a central site for the crisis of the Fordist wage relation. The key role attributed to the theme of the development of a ‘socialised and free’ sector of education in the conflicts concerning the control of ‘intellectual powers of production’ is, therefore, an essential element of Marx’s elaboration of the notion of the general intellect. The establishment of a diffuse intellectuality is configured as the necessary historical condition, even if, in the Grundrisse, this reference is implicit and, in some cases, concealed by a dialectical approach to the evolution of the division of labour that privileges the analysis of structural changes instead of the institutions and the subjects which could have originated these transformations.21 Unlike Marx, the general intellect is not fixed in machinery, it is not just “growth of fixed capital” but today is more and more dependent on living labour, ie the variable capital.22 As well argued by Marazzi, the bio- cognitive capitalism tends to be seen as an anthropogenetic model of production and accumulation: The metamorphosis toward the capitalist anthropogenetic model or, if you prefer, the “biopolitical turning point” of the economy, has a precise amount reflected in the evolution of employment of the labor force. Over the past decade the secular decline of the manufacturing sector compared to the service sector accelerates. This is not only a decrease in the number of industrial activity for increases in population (a phenomenon that has been going on since the beginning of the 900), it is a decline in absolute terms, since 1996, which in United States, England and Japan is equivalent to a reduction of July 25, 2015 19:9 MAC/EFISH Page-230 9781137478566_14_cha13 PROOF Andrea Fumagalli 231 one/fifth of jobs and, in Europe, at an average net loss of 5%. ( . . . ) The difficulties, which we encounter in analyzing these trends in the labour market, indirectly confirm that the emerging model is an anthropogenetic paradigm, a model in which growth factors are in fact directly attributable to human activity, to his communication, relational, creative and innovative skills.23 The valorization process works by exploiting the capabilities of learning, relationship, and social (re)production of human beings. It is in effect a kind of primitive accumulation, which is able to put to labour and to value those activities that in the Fordist-Taylorist paradigm were considered unproductive. The formal subsumption in the bio – capitalism, therefore, has the effect of broadening the basis of accumulation, including training, care, breeding, consumption, social, cultural, artistic and leisure activities. The idea of human productive act changes, the distinction between directly productive labour (labor), the artistic and cultural work (opus), leisure activities (otium and play) fail and tends to converge into labour, a directly and indirectly productive (of surplus-value) activity.24 At the same time, in the bio – cognitive capitalism the real subsumption is modified with respect to the Taylorism but we believe that it still operates. Carlo Vercellone has rights when he writes: From the moment in which knowledge and its diffusion is affirmed as the principal productive force, the relation of domination of dead labour over living labour enters into crisis25 and (quoting Marx): Labour no longer appears so much to be included within the production process; rather, the human being comes to relate more as watchman and regulator to the production process itself.26 But, on our opinion, the changing relation between dead and living labour leads to a redefinition of the two concepts, as well as for the concepts of abstract and concrete labour. As already suggested, the formal subsumption, implicit in bio-cognitive capitalism, has to do with the redefinition of the relationship between productive and unproductive labour, by making productive what in the Fordist paradigm was unproductive. July 25, 2015 19:9 MAC/EFISH Page-231 9781137478566_14_cha13 PROOF 232 Productivity in Reproduction Now the real subsumption has to do with dead/living labour ratio, as consequence of the transition from repetitive, mechanical technologies to linguistic, relational ones. Static technologies, at the basis of the growth of productivity and of intensity in labour performance (size scale economies) switch to dynamic technologies able to exploit learning and network economies, by simultaneously combining manual tasks and brain-relational activities. The result has been the increase of new, more flexible forms of labour, in which design and manufacturing stages (CAD-CAM-CAE) are no longer perfectly separable but more and more interdependent and complementary. Even the separation between manufacturing and service production becomes more difficult to grasp. They becomes inseparable within the production filiére. As far as material production is concerned, the introduction of new computerized systems of production, such as CAD-CAM and CAE necessitate a professional skills and knowledge that make the relationship between man and machine increasingly inseparable, to the point that now it is the living labour to dominate the dead labour of the machine, but inside new form of labour organization and of social governance.27 On the production side of services (financialisation, R&D, communication, brand, marketing), we are witnessing a predominance of the downstream valorization of material production. It should be noted that the reduction in industrial employment, however, does not correspond to an actual decrease of the share of manufacturing on total GDP, which in the United States and in all the developed countries, remains, since 1980, more or less unchanged. In the bio-cognitive capitalism, real subsumption and formal subsumption are two sides of the same coin and feed off one each other. They, together, create a new form of subsumption, we can define life subsumption. We prefer this term to that of subsumption of general intellect, as proposed by Carlo Vercellone,28 since we do not refer only to the sphere of knowledge and education but even to the sphere of human relations, broadly speaking. This new form of the modern capitalist accumulation highlights some aspects that are at the root of the crisis of industrial capitalism. This leads to the analysis of new sources of valorization (and increasing returns) in the bio-cognitive capitalism. They derive from the crisis of the model of social and technical labour division (generated by the first industrial revolution and taken to the extreme by Taylorism) and they are powered by the role and the diffusion of knowledge which obeys a co-operative social rationality which escapes the restrictive conception of human capital.29 July 25, 2015 19:9 MAC/EFISH Page-232 9781137478566_14_cha13 PROOF Andrea Fumagalli 233 It follows that the certified and direct labour time cannot be considered the only productive time, with the effect that a problems of the unit of measure of value arises. The traditional theory of labour value needs to be revised towards a new theory of value, in which the concept of labour is increasingly characterized by “knowledge” and is permeated with the human life and life time. We can call this step as the transition to a theory of life value,30 where the fixed capital is the human being “in whose brain resides the knowledge accumulated by the company”.31 When life becomes labour-force, the working time is not measured in standard units of measurement (hours, days). The working day has no limits, if not the natural ones. We are in the presence of formal subsumption and extraction of absolute surplus-value. When life becomes labor-force because brain becomes machine, or “fixed capital and variable capital at the same time”, the intensification of labour performance reaches its maximum: we are so also in the presence of real subsumption and extraction of relative surplus-value. This combination of the two forms of subsumption – precisely life subsumption – needs a new system of social regulation and governance policy. 4. The governance of life subsumption The process of salarization has historically represented the primary mode which allowed the command of capital over labour in presence of formal subsumption. The composition and the technical division of labour, based on a strict separation between human being and machine and on the hierarchical discipline of labour performance, has characterized the phase of real subsumption. If the process of salarization (both direct and indirect32 ) is still the way that, in part, promotes the formal subsumption (i.e.: the salarization of care work, (re)production, learning, (although it does not operate for other productive activities, such as consumption33 and social relations, as well as leisure and cultural activities are concerned), in the bio-cognitive capitalism the technical division of labour and the separation between human being and machine are no longer the major factors that fuel the real subsumption. Productivity growth is increasingly dependent on the exploitation of dynamic economies of learning and networking, that is on the increasing returns to scale that are fed with the passing of a time that is no longer measurable outside of certified labour performance. It’s no more the time of factory production, in which labour productivity was measured by chronometer July 25, 2015 19:9 MAC/EFISH Page-233 9781137478566_14_cha13 PROOF 234 Productivity in Reproduction applied to the times and rhythms of the machines. The learning and network activities (the birth and diffusion of knowledge) are intrinsically linked to subjectivity, expertise and individuality of the worker. The timing of learning and of networking – the time of the general intellect – become objectively unverifiable and therefore not directly monitorable. It’s therefore necessary to redefine new instruments of control, able to overcome the discipline and establish forms of social control. Deleuze had already identified this step, starting from the analysis of Foucault: Foucault located the disciplinary societies in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries; they reach their peak at the beginning of the twentieth. They proceed to the organization of large areas of imprisonment. The individual never ceases passing from one closed environment to another, each with its own laws: first the family, then the school (“you are no longer in the family”), then the barracks (“you are no longer at school”), then the factory, sometime the hospital, and eventually the prison, which is disciplinary environment for excellence.34 Deleuze then added, with reference to the crisis of the 70s: We are in a generalized crisis of all imprisonment dispositives, from jail to hospital, factory, school and family. The family is an “internal structure” in crisis like all other internal structures, such as educational, professional and so on. The government does not stop to announce reforms which are deemed necessary. Reforming school reforming the industry, the hospital, the army, the prison, but everyone knows that these institutions are finished, at shorter or longer maturity. It is only to manage their agony and to keep people employed until the installation of the new forces that press upon us. These are the societies of control, able to replace the disciplinary societies. “Control” is the name Burroughs has proposed to designate this new monster, and that Foucault recognizes as our immediate future.35 Deleuze points out that in the society of control, the individual is not defined as a “signature” and “a number” but by “a code”: the code is a kind of password (access code), while the disciplinary societies are regulated by “mots d’ordre” both from the point of view of integration and from the resistance. The digital language of control is made of digits (codes) that mark access to information or rejection. July 25, 2015 19:9 MAC/EFISH Page-234 9781137478566_14_cha13 PROOF Andrea Fumagalli 235 We are no more in front of the couple mass/individual. Individuals have become “dividuals,” and masses statistical samples, data, markets or “banks.36 Society of control is the governance of life subsumption. Three elements confirms it. 1. The first has already been underlined by the same Deleuze, when he writes: Is it the money that expresses the distinction between the two societies, since the discipline has always had to do with “paper money”, able to reaffirm that gold is the reference value (the “unit of measure, ndr.), while the control implies flexible exchanges . . . . . . The old monetary mole is the animal of environments of imprisonment, while the serpent is that of the society of control.37 Deleuze refers in this passage to the construction of a supranational monetary systems (the European Monetary System – EMS – of late ‘80) anticipating the role and task of the financial markets over the following twenty years: that is, the violence of financial markets38 as an instrument at the same time of “blackmail and consensus” to access to monetary resources and to cope with the public and private debt. The control of financial flows today means control of the emission of liquidity, formally carried out by central banks, but increasingly dependent on the logic of power and on the conventions of the financial oligarchy. The other side of this control is the governance of individual behaviour through the “debt”: today, debt is no more only an economic and accountability term, but an indirect disciplinary tool (and therefore of social control), able to regulate the individual psychology up to develop a sense of guilt and self-control.39 2. The second process of social control is represented by the evolution of the types of labour contract toward a structural, existential and generalized condition of precarity.40 The precarious condition today is synonymous with uncertainty, instability, nomadism, blackmail and psychological subordination in order to survive. It is a dependency condition that does not manifest itself at the very moment in which it formally defines a labour contract but it is upstream and downstream. It’s an existential condition that induces total forms of self-control and self-repression with even stronger results than July 25, 2015 19:9 MAC/EFISH Page-235 9781137478566_14_cha13 PROOF 236 Productivity in Reproduction those of the direct discipline of the factory. The precarious condition defines an anthropology and behavioural psychology that is as strong as the labour becomes more cognitive and relational. Debt, on the one hand, precarity, on the other hand, are the two main pillars that allow the current life subsumption of bio-cognitive capitalism to operate.41 These two main elements favour an individualisation of economic and social behaviour, towards what Dardot and Laval call the “entrepreneurial man”, a sort of a neoliberalism anthropology which define a new subjective regime, which need to be addressed.42 In order to induce subjective behaviours in line with the process of exploitation of life that underlies life subsumption, it is necessary, however, to introduce other dispositif of control, aimed at the governance of subjectivity of individuals. 3. Here is the third trend of social control, which moves on a dual track: the control of the processes of formation of knowledge (education system) and the creation of an ad hoc individualistic imaginary. When knowledge, the general intellect, becomes strategic, the basis of the process of capitalist accumulation and bio-valorization, it is necessary not only to control it but also direct it. This process can take place along two mutually complementary directives, aimed at the administration of “things” (the first) and the government of the “people” (the second). First, we are witnessing the development of a governance technology (techne) as a tool that constantly minimizes (till eliminate) any element of critical analysis and social philosophy. The technical specialization creates “ignorance” in the etymological sense of the term, ie “no knowledge”. Second, we add the dispositif of merit and of individual and selective reward, a sort of mantra definitely established in the processes of reform of educational institutions (from kindergarten to university). The aim is to transform the different individuality (put to labour and to value) into individualistic subjectivity, perpetually in competition, and then self-vanishing. In parallel, brandisation of life, in term of total commodification of life, leads to ensure that the individual transform itself in unique singularity, with wants and needs aimed more “to appear” rather than “to be”. The formal imaginery of appearance becomes an instrument of conformist identification, which is often hetero-directed and controlled. July 25, 2015 19:9 MAC/EFISH Page-236 9781137478566_14_cha13 PROOF Andrea Fumagalli 237 The powerful growth of social networks, with all their ambivalence and potential wealth, witnesses and certifies this process. Thus, life subsumption exploits subjective individuality, puts to value differences and diversity (gender, race, education, character, experience, etc.), by recombining them, into the external cage43 of debt and precarity, in a continuous and dynamic process of induced social cooperation. In fact, the governance of the life subsumption is based on a calibrated use of two main dispositifs: the social subjugation and enslavement. The social subjugation is precisely the production of subjectivity appropriated by the capital, at the very moment in which the subject worker is freely involved in the valorization process, since in it he/she sees or, better, has the illusion of seeing his own realization. The social subjection, as outcome of individual subjects, gives us an identity, a gender, a profession, a nationality. It constitutes a significant and representative semiotic trap from which no one escapes.44 In bio-cognitive capitalism, the techniques of subjection mobilize forms of representation (for example, the art) and discursive, aesthetic and visual practices. They find fulfilment in the concept of human capital, able to take on their own individual responsibility and, in the case of failure, to feel “guilty” and “in debt.” The figure that best represents this process of subjugation is, at the same time, the self-employer and the consumer. The enslavement is, instead, primarily machinic and psychological enslavement. The two attributes are totally interdependent, when the machine is inside the individual brain and affects the psyche. On the one hand, it refers to technologies that are not representative, but rather operational, diagrammatic, which operate using partial subjectivity, modular, sub-individual.45 on the other hand, it leads: the human being, in the same way of mechanical structure, to work as human component and part of the same machinic.46 Unlike social subjection, in the enslavement our subjectivity, our perception, our psychology, our (false) consciousness are not required. There July 25, 2015 19:9 MAC/EFISH Page-237 9781137478566_14_cha13 PROOF 238 Productivity in Reproduction is no relationship between subject and object, but rather a mechanical procedure, which results from a reciprocal, intimate communication between human being and machine. Social subjugation and enslavement are indispensable to each other and feed off each other. The firms of the bio-cognitive capitalism (like the industrial and great distribution firms or social networks companies (like Facebook, Twitter, etc.. or internet services – Google – or those that manage data surveys, databases) for marketing purposes or data-mining), individuals are not considered as only individuals, but also as a source of production, exchange, distribution and processing of information. The control of information and of knowledge diffusion, the construction of symbolic imaginaries ad hoc, as well as the precarity of life and labour are practices both of social subjugation and of enslavement, able to let us understand the process of life subsumption in biocapitalism cognitive and re-enact the Foucault’s concept of biopower. The challenge, now, is to measure it, if possible. Notes Department of Economics and Management, University of Pavia: afuma@eco. unipv.it. Psychedelic support by Grateful Dead, Jimi Hendrix, The Phish is acknowledged 1. This introduction refers to the preface of my “Twenty Thesis on contemporary capitalism (Cognitive biocapitalism)”, in Angelaky, vol. 16, p. 7–8. 2. As M.Turchetto reminds us: “The origin of the notion of postfordism does not lie in orthodox Marxism or Workerism. hese two currents of thought imported the term and its correspondent definition from France, adapting them to their conceptual apparatus. The copyright of postfordism belongs in fact to the French école de la régulation . . . ” (See M. Turchetto, “Fordismo e post fordismo. Qualche dubbio su un’analisi un po’ troppo consolidata” in various authors, Oltre il fordismo.Continuità e trasformazioni nel capitalismo contemporaneo (Milan: Unicopli,1999). One of the first authors to use the term “post-Fordism” was the English geographer A. Amin in his Post-Fordism: A Reader (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994).Within the French école de la régulation, see B. Jessop, The Regulation Approach: Governance and PostFordism, Economy and Society (Oxford: Blackwell, 1995); A. Lipietz, “The Post-Fordist World: Labor Relations, International Hierarchy and Global Ecology,” Review of International Political Economy 4.1 (1997): 1- 41; R. Boyer and J.-P. Durand, L’Apre’s-fordisme (Paris: Syros, 1998). As far as the Italian debate is concerned, the first text to use the term post-Fordism is S. Bologna and A. Fumagalli, eds., Il lavoro autonomo di seconda generazione. Scenari del postfordismo in Italia (Milan: Feltrinelli, 1997). See also E. Rullani and L. Romano, Il Postfordismo. Idee per il capitalismo prossimo venturo (Milan: Etas Libri, 1998) and the already quoted critical text by M.Turchetto in various authors, Oltre il fordismo. July 25, 2015 19:9 MAC/EFISH Page-238 9781137478566_14_cha13 PROOF Andrea Fumagalli 239 3. See, among others, T. Ohno, Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production (New York: Productivity, 1995); G. Bonazzi, Il tubo di cristallo. Modello giapponese e fabbrica integrata alla Fiat (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1993); M. Revelli, “Economia e modello sociale nel passaggio tra fordismo e toyotismo” in Appuntamenti di fine secolo, eds. P. Ingrao and R. Rossanda (Rome: Manifestolibri, 1995) 161–224; B. Coriat, Penser a’ l’invers (Paris: Bourgois,1991). 4. See M. Priore and C. Sabel, The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity New York: Basic, 1984.); S. Brusco, Piccole imprese e distretti industriali (Turin Rosenberg, 1989); G. Becattini, Distretti industriali e sviluppo locale (Turin: Bollati Boringhieri, 2000). For a critical analysis, see M. Lazzarato, Y. Moulier-Boutang, A. Negri, and G. Santilli, Des enterprises pas comme les autres (Paris: Publisud, 1993); A. Fumagalli, “Lavoro e piccolo impresa nell’accumulazione flessibile in Italia. Parte I e Parte II,” Altreragioni 5 and 6 (1996–7). 5. See C.Palloix, L’economiamondiale e lemultinazionali, 2 vols. (Milan: Jaca, 1979 and 1982); G. Bertin, Multinationales et propriete industrielle. Le Controle de la technologie mondiale (Paris: PUF, 1985). 6. This term originated in France in the early 2000s from the research of the Laboratoire Isys- Matisse, Maison des Sciences Economiques, Université de Paris I, La Sorbonne, under the direction of B. Paulré, and it is diffused by the journal Multitudes with very heterogeneous texts by A. Corsani, M. Lazzarato, Y. Moulier-Boutang, T. Negri, E. Rullani, C. Vercellone and others. On this topic, see also B. Paulrè, “De la New Economy au capitalisme cognitif,” Multitudes 2 (2000): 25–42; C. Azais, A. Corsani, and P. Dieuaide, eds.,Vers un capitalisme cognitif (Paris: l’Harmattan, 2001);Y.Moulier-Boutang, L’eta’ delcapitalismo cognitivo (Verona: Ombre Corte, 2002); C.Vercellone, ed., Sommes-nous sortis du capitalisme industriel? (Paris: La Dispute, 2003); A.Corsani, P. Dieuaide, M. Lazzarato, J.M. Monnier, Y. Moulier-Boutang, B. Paulré, and C.Vercellone, Le Capitalisme cognitif comme sortie de la crise du capitalisme industriel. Un programme de recherche (2004). For a more recent analysis, see C.Vercellone, ed.,Capitalismo cognitivo (Rome: Manifestolibri, 2006); A. Fumagalli, Bioeconomia e capitalismo cognitivo. Verso un nuovo paradigma di accumulazione (Rome: Carocci, 2007); Y. Moulier-Boutang, Le Capitalisme cognitif. Comprendre la nouvelle grande transformation et ses enjeux (Paris: Editions Amsterdam, 2007). See also the monographic issue “Le Capitalisme cognitif. Apports et perspectives” of the European Journal of Economic and Social Systems 20.1 (2007), eds. A. Fumagalli and C.Vercellone, with contributions by A. Arvidsson, L. Cassi, A.Corsani, P.Dieuaide, S. Lucarelli, J.M.Monier, and B. Paulré, as well as by the editors. 7. See D. Lebert and C.Vercellone, “Il ruolo della conoscenza nella dinamica di lungo periodo del capitalismo: l’ipotesi del capitalismo cognitivo” in Capitalismo cognitivo (Rome, Manifestolibri, 2006). 8. See A.Orléan, Del’euphorie à la panique. Penser la crise financie’re (Paris: Rue d’Ulm, 2009). 9. The terms bioeconomy and biocapitalism are very recent. The concept of bioeconomy was introduced by A. Fumagalli, in 2004; see “Conoscenza e bioeconomia,” Filosofia e Questioni Pubbliche IX.1 (2004): 141–61 and July 25, 2015 19:9 MAC/EFISH Page-239 9781137478566_14_cha13 PROOF 240 10. 11. 12. 13. Productivity in Reproduction “Bioeconomics, Labour Flexibility and Cognitive Work: Why Not Basic Income?” in Promoting Income Security as a Right: Europe and North America, ed. G. Standing (London: Anthem, 2005) 337–50, as well as Fumagalli, Bioeconomia e capitalismo cognitivo. For an interesting analysis of the concept of bioeconomy, see also F.Chicchi, “Bioeconomia: ambienti e forme della mercificazione del vivente” in Biopolitica, bioeconomia e processi di soggettivazione, eds. A. Amendola, L. Bazzicaluppo, F.Chicchi, and A. Tucci (Macerata: Quodlibet, 2008) 143–58 and L. Bazzicaluppo, Il governo delle vite. Biopolitica ed economia (Rome and Bari: Laterza, 2006). The term biocapitalism was instead coined by V. Codeluppi, Il biocapitalismo. Verso lo sfruttamento integrale di corpi, cervelli ed emozioni (Turin: Bollati Boringhieri, 2008), C. Morini, The feminization of labour in cognitive capitalism, Feminist Review (2007) 87, 40–59. See also the more recent C. Morini, Per amore o per forza. Femminilizzazione del lavoro e biopolitiche del corpo (Verona: Ombre Corte, 2010), A. Fumagalli, Twenty Thesis on contemporary capitalism (Cognitive biocapitalism), in Angelaky, vol. 16, p. 7–17, 2011 and “La vie mise au travail: nouevelles forms du capitalisme cognitive”, Eterotopia France, Paris, 2015 See C. Fuchs, Digital Labour and Karl Marx (Mew York, Routledge, 2014), E. Fisher, Media and New Capitalism in the Digital Age: The Spirit of Networks (London, Palgrave, 2013), A. Fumagalli, “La vie mise au travail: nouevelles forms du capitalisme cognitive”, (Paris, Eterotopia France, 2015) As suggested by C. Vercellone, the term ‘subsumption’ is to be preferred to the term ‘submission’ “because it better allows us to grasp the permanence of the opposition of capital to labour and the conflict for the control of the ‘intellectual powers of production’ in the unfolding of the different stages of the capitalist division of labour”. See, C. Vercellone, “From Formal Subsumption to General Intellect: Elements for a Marxist Reading of the Thesis of Cognitive Capitalism”, Historical Materialism, 15 (2007), pag. 15, note 4. Marx writes: “I call the form which rests on absolute surplus-value the formal subsumption of labour under capital because it is distinguished only formally from the earlier modes of production on the basis of which it directly originates (is introduced), modes in which either the producers are self-employed, or the direct producers have to provide surplus labour for others”. See K. Marx, The Capital, Book I, ch. VI (unpublished) “Results of the Direct Production Process”, 1964: pag. 93. (http://www.marxists. org/archive/marx/works/1864/economic/). See also C. Vercellone: “The stage of formal subsumption develops between the beginning of the sixteenth and the end of the eighteenth century. It is based on the models of production of the putting-out system and of centralised manufacture. The relation of capital/labour is marked by the hegemony of the knowledge of craftsmen and of workers with a trade, and by the pre-eminence of the mechanisms of accumulation of a mercantile and financial type”: C. Vercellone, “From Formal Subsumption to General Intellect: Elements for a Marxist Reading of the Thesis of Cognitive Capitalism”, Historical Materialism, 15 (2007), pag. 15. K. Marx, The Capital, Book I Part V: The Production of Absolute and of Relative Surplus-Value. Ch. XVI: Absolute and Relative Surplus-Value (it. ed. p. 354): https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch16.htm July 25, 2015 19:9 MAC/EFISH Page-240 9781137478566_14_cha13 PROOF Andrea Fumagalli 241 14. See note 1. 15. K. Marx. The Capital, Book I, Part VIII: Primitive Accumulation, Ch. XXXI, Ch. 31: Genesis of the Industrial Capitalist (it.ed. pag. 738): https:// www.marxists.org/archive /marx/works/1867-c1/ch31.htm; S. Mezzadra, “Attualità della preistoria. Per una rilettura del capitolo 24 del primo libro del Capitale, «La cosiddetta accumulazione originaria »”, http:// www. uninomade.org/per-una-rilettura-del-capitolo-24-del-capitale/ and D. Harvey, The new imperialism, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005. 16. For deepen details, D. Fusaro, Bentornato Marx, Bompiani, Milano, 2010, pp. 233 ssgg. 17. A. Smith, An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations, 1776: http:// www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/adam-smith/wealth-nations.pdf 18. C. Vercellone, “From Formal Subsumption to General Intellect: Elements for a Marxist Reading of the Thesis of Cognitive Capitalism”, in Historical Materialism, n. 15, 2007, pp. 13–36. See A. Negri, Marx beyond Marx. Lessons on the Grundrisse (translated by H. Cleaver, M. Ryan and M. Viano) Autonomedia/Pluto Pess, 1991 pp. 59–85. 19. K. Marx, Grundrisse, Penguin Books, 1973, p. 404. 20. “In the absence of other means of access to money and/or to non-marketable appropriation of the means of subsistence” as c. Vercellone writes. See C. Vercellone, “From Formal Subsumption to General Intellect: Elements for a Marxist Reading of the Thesis of Cognitive Capitalism”, in Historical Materialism, n. 15, 2007, pp. 13–36. 21. Ibidem, pag. 27. 22. On this point there are different interpretations about Marx thought. From one side, Paolo Virno, identifies the general intellect with fixed capital in toto, (see P. Virno, “Quelques notes à propos du general intellect”, Futur Antérieur, 10, 1992: 45–53), from the other, Carlo Vercellone underlines that the same general intellect presents itself as living labour and, hence, cannot be considered solely as fixed capital. This discussion is still open. 23. C. Marazzi, “Capitalismo digitale e modello antropogenetico del lavoro. L’ammortamento del corpo macchina”, in J.L. Laville, C. Marazzi, M. La Rosa, F. Chicchi, (a cura di), Reinventare il lavoro, Sapere 2000, Roma, 2005, p. 112. 24. For more details, see A. Fumagalli, Lavoro male comune, B. Mondadori, Milano, 2013, ch. 1. 25. C. Vercellone, “From Formal Subsumption to General Intellect: Elements for a Marxist Reading of the Thesis of Cognitive Capitalism”, in Historical Materialism, n. 15, 2007, pag. 26. 26. C. Marx Grundrisse, Penguin Books, 1973, p. 704. 27. See next paragraph. 28. C. Vercellone, “From Formal Subsumption to General Intellect: Elements for a Marxist Reading of the Thesis of Cognitive Capitalism”, in Historical Materialism, n. 15, 2007, pag. 26 29. C. Vercellone, “From Formal Subsumption to General Intellect: Elements for a Marxist Reading of the Thesis of Cognitive Capitalism”, in Historical Materialism, n. 15, 2007, pag. 31. 30. A. Fumagalli, C.Morini, Life put to work: towards a theory of life-value, Ephemera, vol. 10, 2011, p. 234–252. Carlo Vercellone introduces the concept July 25, 2015 19:9 MAC/EFISH Page-241 9781137478566_14_cha13 PROOF 242 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. Productivity in Reproduction of theory of knowledge-value, when he discusses “the concomitant passage from a theory of time-value of labour to a theory of knowledge-value where the principal fixed capital is man ‘in whose brain exists the accumulated knowledge of society(K. Marx, Grundrisse, Penguin Books, 1973, p. 711)’: C. Vercellone, “From Formal Subsumption to General Intellect: Elements for a Marxist Reading of the Thesis of Cognitive Capitalism”, in Historical Materialism, n. 15, 2007, pag. 31. K. Marx, Grundrisse, Penguin Books, 1973, p. 725. For indirect salarization, we mean the remuneration of an employment relationship that is not characterized by prescriptive and subordinated elements of the tasks on the basis of contractual agreements, but rather the remuneration for formally autonomous and independent labour activities, but in fact subjected to an hetero-direction. We refer, for example, to the various cooperation agreements, that are today more and more widespread, and to largely relating to forms of cognitive labour (VAT workers, consultants and mono-committed self-employers). On the valorization role played by consumption, the word “prosumer” has been coined. This term derives from the crasis of “producer” and “consumer” and was created in 1980 by Alvin Toffler. Toffler, in his book The Third Wave predicted that the role of the producer and that of the consumer would start to merge. V. Codeluppi, Il biocapitalismo, Bollati Boringhieri, Torino, 2008; R. Curcio, Il consumatore lavorato, Sensibili alle Foglie, Dogliani (CN), 2005. G. Deleuze, “L’autre journal”, n. 1, maggio 1990, now in G. Deleuze, Pourparlers (1972–1990), Minuit, Paris 1990, pp. 240–247: http://www.ecn. org/filiarmonici/Deleuze.html Ibidem. Ibidem. Ibidem. C. Marazzi, “The violence of financial capitalism”, in A. Fumagalli, S. Mezzadra, Crisis in the Global Economy, Semiotexte/Mit Press 2010, pp. 17–60. M. Lazzarato, The Making of the Indebted Man. Essay on the Neoliberal Condition, Semiotexte/Mit Press 2013. Please, note that, in German, the term“debt” (Schulde) has the same meaning of “guilt”. On precarious condition, see A. Fumagalli, “La condizione precaria come paradigma biopolitico”, in F.Chicchi, E.Leonardi (a cura di), Lavoro in frantumi. Condizione precaria, nuovi conflitti e regime neoliberista, Ombre Corte, Verona, 2011, pp. 63–79, G. Standing, The precariat. A dangerous class, Bloomsbury, London, 2012. A. Fumagalli, Lavoro male comune, op.cit. See P.Dardot, C.Laval, La nouvelle raison du monde: essai sur la société néolibérale, La découverte, Paris, 2009, ch. 8 and 12. External why it is independent on employment and social status: everyone has the right to its 10 minutes of fame! M. Lazzarato, The Making of the Indebted Man. Essay on the Neoliberal Condition, Semiotexte/Mit Press 2013. p. 148. Ibidem, p. 148–49. Ibidem, p. 149. July 25, 2015 19:9 MAC/EFISH Page-242 9781137478566_14_cha13 PROOF Andrea Fumagalli 243 Bibliography Aa.Vv, Oltre il fordismo. 1999. Continuità e trasformazioni nel capitalismo contemporaneo. Unicopli: Milano. Amin, A. 1994. Post-Fordism: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell. Azais, C., A. Corsani, and P. Dieuaide, eds. 2001. Vers un capitalisme cognitive. Paris: l’Harmattan. Bazzicaluppo, L. 2006. Il governo delle vite. Biopolitica ed economia, Rome and Bari: Laterza. Becattini, G. 2000. Distretti industriali e sviluppo locale: Turin: Bollati Boringhieri. Bertin, G. 1985. Multinationales et proprieté industrielle. Le Controle de la technologie mondiale. Paris: PUF. Boyer, R. and J.-P. Durand. 1998. L’Apre’s-fordisme. Paris: Syros. Bologna, S. and A. Fumagalli, eds. 1997. Il lavoro autonomo di seconda generazione. Scenari del postfordismo in Italia. Milan: Feltrinelli. Bonazzi, G. 1993. Il tubo di cristallo. Modello giapponese e fabbrica integrata alla Fiat. Bologna: Il Mulino. Brusco, S. 1989. Piccole imprese e distretti industriali. Turin: Rosenberg. Codeluppi, V. 2008. Il biocapitalismo. Verso lo sfruttamento integrale di corpi, cervelli ed emozioni. Turin: Bollati Boringhieri. Chicchi, F. 2008.Bioeconomia: Ambienti e forme della mercificazione del vivente. In Biopolitica, bioeconomia e processi di soggettivazione edited by A. Amendola, L. Bazzicaluppo, F. Chicchi, and A. Tucci, eds, 143–158. Macerata: Quodlibet. Coriat, B. 1991. Penser à l’invers. Paris: Bourgois. Corsani, A., P. Dieuaide, M. Lazzarato, J.M. Monnier, Y. Moulier-Boutang, B. Paulré, and C. Vercellone. 2004. Le Capitalisme cognitif comme sortie de la crise du capitalisme industriel. Un programme de recherché. Dardot, P. and C. Laval. 2009. La nouvelle raison du monde: Essai sur la société néolibérale. Paris: La découverte. Deleuze, G. 1990. “L’autre journal”, n. 1, maggio 1990, now. In, Minuit, G. Deleuze, Pourparlers (1972–1990), 240–247. Paris: http://www.ecn.org /filiarmonici/Deleuze.html Fisher, E. 2013. Media and New Capitalism in the Digital Age: The Spirit of Networks. London: Palgrave. Fumagalli, A. 1996.,Lavoro e piccolo impresa nell’accumulazione flessibile in Italia. Parte I, Altreragioni n.5, Milano, 21–37 Fumagalli, A., 1996.,“Lavoro e piccolo impresa nell’accumulazione flessibile in Italia. Parte II, Altreragioni, n. 6, 1997, 141–164 Fumagalli, A. 2004. Conoscenza e bioeconomia. Filosofia e Questioni Pubbliche IX (1): 141–61. Fumagalli, A. 2005. Bioeconomics, labour flexibility and cognitive work: Why not basic income? In Promoting Income Security as a Right: Europe and North America, edited by G. Standing, 33–337. London: Anthem. Fumagalli, A. 2007. Bioeconomia e capitalismo cognitivo. Verso un nuovo paradigma di accumulazione. Rome: Carocci. Fumagalli, A. 2001. Twenty thesis on contemporary capitalism (Cognitive biocapitalism). Angelaky 16: 7–17. July 25, 2015 19:9 MAC/EFISH Page-243 9781137478566_14_cha13 PROOF 244 Productivity in Reproduction Fumagalli, A. 2011. La condizione precaria come paradigma biopolitico. In, Lavoro in frantumi. Condizione precaria, nuovi conflitti e regime neoliberista, F. Chicchi, E. Leonardi (a cura di), 63–79. Ombre Corte: Verona. Fumagalli, A. 2013. Lavoro male comune, Milano: B. Mondadori. Fumagalli, A. 2015. La vie mise au travail: Nouevelles forms du capitalisme cognitive. Paris: Eterotopia France. Fumagalli, A. and C. Vercellone, eds. 2007. Le Capitalisme cognitif. Apports et perspectives. European Journal of Economic and Social Systems20 (1) Fumagalli, A. and C. Morini. 2011. Life put to work: Towards a theory of lifevalue, Ephemera10:234–252. Fusaro, D. 2010. Bentornato Marx. Milano: Bompiani. Fuchs, C. 2014. Digital Labour and Karl Marx. New York: Routledge. Harvey, D. 2005. The New Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jessop, B. 1995. The Regulation Approach: Governance and Post-Fordism, Economy and Society. Oxford: Blackwell. Lazzarato, M., Y. Moulier-Boutang, A. Negri, and G. Santilli. 1993. Des enterprises pas comme les autres. Paris: Publisud. Lazzarato, M. 2012. The Making of the Indebted Man. Essay on the Neoliberal Condition, Semiotexte/Mit Press. Lebert, D. and C.Vercellone. 2006. Il ruolo della conoscenza nella dinamica di lungo periodo del capitalismo: L’ipotesi del capitalismo cognitive. In Capitalismo Cognitivo, edited by C. Vercellone, Rome: Manifestolibri. Lipietz, A. 1997. The Post-Fordist World: Labor Relations, International Hierarchy and Global Ecology. Review of International Political Economy 4 (1) 1–41. Marazzi, C. 2005. Capitalismo digitale e modello antropogenetico del lavoro. L’ammortamento del corpo macchina. In Reinventare il lavoro, J.L. Laville, C. Marazzi, M. La Rosa, F. Chicchi, (a cura di). Sapere 2000: Roma. Marazzi, C. 2010. The violence of financial capitalism. In Crisis in the Global Economy, A. Fumagalli, S. Mezzadra, 17–60. Semiotexte/Mit Press. Marx, K. The Capital, Book I: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/ 1864/economic/ Marx, K. 1973. Grundrisse. London: Penguin Books. Mezzadra, S. “Attualità della preistoria. Per una rilettura del capitolo 24 del primo libro del Capitale, «La cosiddetta accumulazione originaria» ”, http:// www. uninomade.org/per-una-rilettura-del-capitolo-24-del-capitale/ Morini, C. 2007. The Feminization of Labour in Cognitive Capitalism. Feminist Review87: 40–59. Morini, C. 2010. Per amore o per forza. Femminilizzazione del lavoro e biopolitiche del corpo. Verona: Ombre Corte. Moulier-Boutang, Y. 2002. L’eta’ del capitalismo cognitive. Verona: Ombre Corte. Moulier-Boutang, Y. 2007. Le Capitalisme cognitif. Comprendre la nouvelle grande transformation et ses enjeux. Paris: Editions Amsterdam. Negri, A. 1991. Marx beyond Marx. Lessons on the Grundrisse (translated by H. Cleaver, M. Ryan and M. Viano), Autonomedia/Pluto Press. Ohno, T. 1995. Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production. NY: Productivity. Orléan, A. 2009. Del’euphorie à la panique. Penser la crise financie’re. Paris: Rue d’Ulm. July 25, 2015 19:9 MAC/EFISH Page-244 9781137478566_14_cha13 PROOF Andrea Fumagalli 245 Palloix, C. 1982. L’economia mondiale e lemultinazionali, 2 vols., Milan: Jaca, 1979 and 1982 Paulrè, B. 2000. De la New Economy au capitalisme cognitive. Multitudes, 2:25–42. Priore, M. and C. Sabel. 1984. The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity. New York: Basic. Revelli, M. 1995. Economia e modello sociale nel passaggio tra fordismo e toyotismo. In Appuntamenti di fine secolo, edited by P. Ingrao and R. Rossanda, 161–224. Rome: Manifestolibri. Rullani, E. and L. Romano. 1998. Il Postfordismo. Idee per il capitalismo prossimo venture. Milan: Etas Libri. Smith, A. 1776. An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations, 1776: http:// www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/adam-smith/wealth-nations.pdf Standing, G. 2012. The Precariat. A Dangerous Class, London: Bloomsbury. Vercellone, C. ed. 2003. Sommes-nous sortis du capitalisme industriel? Paris: La Dispute. Vercellone, C. ed. 2006.Capitalismo Cognitivo. Rome: Manifestolibri. Vercellone, C. 2007. From formal subsumption to general intellect: Elements for a Marxist reading of the thesis of cognitive capitalism. In Historical Materialism, 15. July 25, 2015 19:9 MAC/EFISH Page-245 9781137478566_14_cha13