JF

I guess we just have different conceptions of value production then. I personally am stubborn to hold the standard marxian definition but I’ll agree to disagree here. The last thing I’ll say is who (which subject) do you think holds Capitalism’s negativity (a crude Hegelianism)?

Huh?

1 reason Marx hailed the Proletariat as the Revolutionary Subject was because as a class, they contained the negativity of Capitalism, in their role as the excluded, what Zizek calls the “non-part.” I find it difficult to apply this to anyone simply involved in reproduction.

Yeah I think this is wrong then. It’s because they hold the power of value creation.

I find it useful. Cops are essentially a middle class institution that provides a somewhat stable way toward a middle class income (and I think this is one of the reasons cops are hyperdefensive, trying to retain their status which then trumps the principle of protecting and -

- serving the public), so I dont see any way they would qualify as Revolutionary subjects. Accountants likewise merely take on the duties necessary to bourgeois administration and partake in already expropriated value. I see it as unproductive labor thats only necessary to a -

- specific social form. Perhaps a better way to account (no pun intended) for this question is what role would these positions have in a post-capital communal society? Accountants perhaps would have a role in assessing labor-time allocations and such. But they would -

- necessarily lose a host of benefits and advatnages that they currentlt recieve as corporate petty-bourgeois and so it’s completely reasonable to say they are recipients of a class interest that places them in opposition to such a project.