Class Perspective in Marxian Theory: Beyond Mere Resistance to Capitalism Toward the Self-Construction
By [Name]
Course
Professor’s Name
Institution
Location of Institution
Date
Introduction
Several theories have offered different points of view of social relationship in capitalism. According to Marxian perspective, a theory can only be useful in offering insight on a particular class perspective upon being able to comprehend its approach regarding the particular class relationships. A theoretical perspective may be inappropriate in our view, but it still could be possible to understand its preoccupation, approach, interest and its usefulness.
This essay will be particularly examining the Marxist representation of the working-class tussles to achieve self-reconstruction as an alternative way of being unlike the assumed mere force inclined towards opposing capitalism. Accordingly, the research offers a discussion about the economic theory perspective of class and use the Marxian theory to show the concept of self-reconstruction concerning post – WWII Italian Marxism (Cleaver 1992).
Marxism and Class Perspective
Cleaver (1992) asserts that to understand the social relationships within capitalism, the Marxian theory provides a conceptual apparatus useful in the struggle against capitalism in comparison to any other critical theory. In addition to offering a precise mechanism of domination, Marxian theory ensures the mechanisms provided are clear and transparent for easy confrontation and dealings. For instance, Marxian theory illustrates the existing exploitation and antagonism present in all reproducible relationships between workers and capitalists. The theory goes further to explain the organisation of this exploitation through discernment of the remuneration structure, division of labour, absolute and relative surplus value among other aspects (Acker et al. 2006).
Dinerstein (1997) argues that, the mechanisms of exploitation and the associated phenomena are a tool to the capitalist managers, they realize that, in order to increase profit, they need to hold piece wage or downtime, reorganize production by increasing working hours, pitting workers against each other and limiting wage growth while raising productivity. The Marxian theory provides a conceptual framework for the workers as a means of handling such mechanisms of exploitation. The workers through this framework can recognise the mechanism of domination, to penetrate the camouflage, and also provide clear thinking about the strategies the workers would employ for opposing or undermining the mechanisms (Valentine 1976).
Reversal of Class Perspective
Class Perspective reversal as described by Marx in his analyses of surplus value, “profit” is the basic form in which the surplus value occurs, about capital investment. According to Marx, capitalists are fundamentally interested in surplus value; they, therefore, quantify the surplus value about the investment requirement that creates the surplus (Dinerstein 1997). In the event of a reduced profit in the current activity compared to another activity, the capitalists, irrespective of a large current value of surplus, will transfer their existing capital spending. Contrarily, the perspective of the working class regarding surplus is essentially different. First, the measure of the part of a lifetime the workers surrender to capital in terms of surplus labour time extracted is very vital, second, exploitation level is the applicable extent of the surplus value relative size, the concept compares the given up time to capital to the personal time spent. This viewpoint on surplus is concealed beneath the preoccupation of the capitalist with profit both in the world of conventional economics and the business world (Kicillof and Starosta 2007).
Even though the Marxian perspective of extra value is in itself the working-class perspective, there is a clear difference regarding class interests and contrasting preoccupations between the notion of superfluous value and the impression of additional value as profit. According to Marxian theory, the decrease in the degree of manipulation is primarily the driving force behind the struggle of the working class alongside surplus value, whether the scuffle is meant to surge the labour power value that cuts the value of comparative surplus or the struggle is meant to curtail the working day that cuts the value of absolute surplus (Wennerlind 2002). Consequently, the capitalists only think of the increased profit rates in their effort to enlarge surplus value. The two moments according to Marxian theory depict a kind of reversal class outlook within an overall speculative methodology that essentially seeks to offer to comprehend entrepreneurship from a working-class perspective.
Capital and Class Composition
Marx’s mental perception of changes involving Technology throws relevant factors of productions’ comprehension again. The most important understanding of Marx’s mental concept of changes involving Technology is essentially; composition pertaining to the use of mechanic arts with any underlying academic, legal, engineering, business or science as a degree of distinction; such would be specification and precision, the level of importance allocation, quality rendered, durability, inclusion of fair factors rendered in a composition whose numerical quantity is measurable. An important consideration was that any item of food or food products should be grown in an environment free from artificial agrichemicals, relating to natural products, relating to the compounds of carbon and probably certified by a regulatory body (Kicillof and Starosta 2007).
According to Wennerlind (2002), the Marx’s complementary understanding of “value” and “organic” compositions of machinery, raw materials and plant are heaped by their quality, importance allocation and durability summarised in worth and representative as constant capital and engaged labours heaped by its worth and plays the changing role. The determining feature between organic and value composition depend plainly in Marx’s urge to differentiate between Capital variation versus value owed to changes in the constant or changing capital value (Wennerlind 2002).
The theory portrays that a significant drop in the workforce value due to favourable conditions and an outstanding output that reduces the value of by-products increases the value of capital value. The value of a commodity can be determined by labour hours required to avail the product. He advocates for a rise in capital value through an introduction of new assemblies and sub-assemblies in the form of machinery to enhance labour productivity (Panzieri 1980.) The idea forms the basis upon which labour operations are designed since it has a positive long-term influence, that is the urge to employ mechanical labour which is relatively easily controlled, more output oriented and controllable as opposed to human beings who are susceptible to several factors. That evaluation affects the likelihood of the displacement of workers, systemic crises and rises in joblessness (Arestis and Sawyer 2001).
According to Panzieri (1980), the engagement of the capital in place of human labour has created an unutilized workforce that is redundant and hopeless. The Marxist economists over the years have raised the concern in regard specifically with the displacement of labour; its effects run deep into the fibre of the society, and the main calamity is increased in widespread unemployment. The post-war modernisation of the Italian industry met a counter response of the working class who declined to integrate the technological changes view for development. The Italian Marxists were drawn into a reevaluation of the theory. They discovered that capital-labour increased considerably the rate of exploitation since the strength of the workforce was minimised (Cleaver 1992).
Marxism and Valorization
Marxian valorisation theory forms the basis of the theory of capitalism. The concept is designed to manage the complex process of putting people to work and to enable the replication of the process to a grander scale. From a technical perspective, the theory of valorization constitutes all the elements of Marx’s productive capital circuit or the production process, wherein workers are organized to produce products that exceed their requirements, the products are then sold at prices that enable the realization of surplus value and lastly, the surplus value is reinvested in readiness to put workers to work again (MacKenzie 1984).
According to Vatin (2013), the Marxian analysis of the process in terms of value depicts the sameness of the process of production that is not differentiated fundamentally and which form part of the process form a capitalist point of view. The name “valorisation” throws more weight to the huge transformation achieved by the capital by creating a unified social control mechanism by reducing the diversity of productive human activity. The process does not consider the kind of production undertaken or what the kind of work is done provided the process gives rise to products whose sale creates enough surplus to ensure the continuity of the production process (beginning the process all over again) (Cleaver 1992).
The money form of quantitative equivalence between products and labour as well as profit can also be used to illustrate this sameness according to the labour theory of value. This theory, therefore, is a conceptual representation of the meaning of work in society and the capital’s view of work. Through the theory of value, the dynamics of capitalist domination can be understood both qualitatively and quantitatively due to the transparency of alienating reductionism of capitalist command. This theory is therefore considered inseparable from the theory of society from the theory of the accumulation of life as work, the theory of the labour process from the theory of valorisation or the theory of surplus value.
In simple terms, the Marxist theory of valorisation is primarily a show of how capital subordinates, transforms and utilises the activities of humans that are considered proactive for its endless command over the society. Marx puts describe capitalism as a case of “production for the sake of production,” where capital engages the labour force to work for the sake of it because it’s a capital owned world and civilisation is represented like a vast labour Gulag (labour camp) (Cleaver 1992).
Marx and disvalorization
According to Homs, (2017), the Marxist mental conception has always promoted self-construction, this is based on the fact that they subscribe to the reality that humans have varied skills on different levels, and the said skills have reportedly existed out of the capital orientation and therefore the understanding applied in the manner of an assessment of such endowment should realistically be of varied understanding of any relevant value or material of the subject matter, and goes further to outline that the resistance of capitalist ideas is fundamentally for the promotion of varied skills to enhance overall output and not in itself tagged on dominance – the operational set-up whereby the system is hell-bent on utmost control and very ready at any cost to replace any influence with another.
Additionally, the Marxist mental conception, destruction of capitalist value is characterised by the tremendous increase in item production which resultantly reduces the individual product value (Rischin 1994).
Marx had a different opinion in his assessment of the so-called colonialization and primitive accumulation, which was ideally from the Communist Manifesto to Capitalist. As he championed for the collapse of the indigenous rural set up of pre-capitalist characterised by the peasants losing their property and rights, he at the same time felt the new setup exposed them to other forms of disorientation; namely, forceful enslavement, ultimate degradation, impoverishment and sheer exploitation. However, very little is captured of his efforts to highlight the very positive values that ran deep to the core of the society which was being wiped out, indications consequently are that he directed his focus on the analysis of the new order, got entwined into it with the purpose of understanding its merits and demerits and in turn forgot the positives of the past (Grant 1976)
Jessop (1997) argues that, self-valorization delves into the dynamics and type of independent skills and capacities through an ambiguous practice within the indigenous setup, the various stages of incorporation into capitalization – loss of identity and focus, loss of property and the urge to gain self-reconstruction and eventual actualization, studies show that the process of disorientation of such intelligence into a hopeless capitalist domination hasn’t been successfully achieved so far (Béraud 2002). It is on record that many entities who don’t subscribe to capitalist ideologies form a veil of protection from such ideologies and set a strong foundation upon which to claim their entitlements based on status and capacity. It is worth noting that the generation of independent activities while still engulfed into historical identities sets up a series of renewable events. The sources of such status are not based on daily patterns of living or bearing any inclination to an assumed set of events but generally born out of sheer human creativity which eventually enhances freedom (Zhou 2015).
The Marxian theory on capitalists’ opinion has it that when aspects of autonomy are assimilative, then they are intuitive and creative or subversive and deviant if they oppose incorporation consequently unrestorable. Intuition and creativity fosters the capitalist development, on the other hand, bourgeois theory and its interpretation coins their understanding of the uncooperative working class capacity as; defiant, backward, paranoid, primitive, underdeveloped, theretofore it should be incorporated as good practice to adequately analyze any theory that enhances the capitalist theory so as to negate the underlying principle (Marks 2016).
As described in Illich and Cayley (1992), Ivan Illich shares an understanding with the Marxist theorists and advocates for the advancement of the ideas that enhance independent creativity in the society, Illich focuses so much of his theory on the evils affecting the modern setup of humanity and the resultant consequences, He went ahead to stress on the development of skill capacities and the need to avail the platform that would ensure their survival. His evaluation of the ancient types of autonomy, exclusion, nature, and survival influenced his focus to vernacular subsistence – which meant independent factors of quality through which the population drew utility against the economic plunder. Illich outlines that there are necessary subsistence activities which have survived and operated in a vicious circle, every time resurfacing out a new and the trend has created some history of the autonomous subsistence activities. Such struggles have been noted by Gustavo Estevan, a close confidant of Illich and upon personal evaluation described it the vernacular subsistence activities (Cayley 1992).
Marxism and Self-Valorization
The concept of self-valorisation was coined during the 1960s and 1970s international cycle of struggles. It was designed to express the working-class power and to provide the hope of progressing beyond capitalism. The concept was not only used to theorised but also for the building of the working-class autonomy development against and within capitalism. The Italian Marxist Antonio Negri, therefore, proposed self-valorisation as a contribution to the movement (Bowring 2004).
The concept was useful for grasping the degree of capitalist power that purposed to convert the society as a whole into a social factory as well as the full amplitude and countenance of the authority of the working class to subvert domination of capitalist through refusal. Additionally, self-valorisation purposed to be a model for future projects by showing the power of the constitution as a precondition for the power of refusal (Bowring 2004). Self-valorization was critical in showing the plight of the working class especially the young employees of the 1960s and early 1970s. For instance, these young workers used their time, resources and spaces creatively, to agitate for and acquire liberation from the multinational and Italian capital. These were evident through the expansion of women’s spaces, proliferation of “free radio stations” among other self-management projects, a concept later referred to as “the counter-culture.”
According to Cleaver (1994), albeit Negri belief that valorisation in its development takes the form of auto-determination which he argues is autonomous and distinct from capitalist valorisation but a process of self- determination which traverses the mere resistance to valorisation according to capitalism into a positive process of self-constitution. The author asserts that Marx while developing the concept of labour power of the working class using collective and living labour was implicit. Negri’s theory, however, gives a clear picture of positive and negative characterisation. The negative moments of self-valorisation wan not only characterised by refusal power to domination by capitalist but also by the zeal to destroy the determination of capitalism. The working class, therefore, showed the power of the new practice constitution and creativity during the class recomposition.
The new autonomous constituted practice within the working class has an old origin, Negri argues that these could emanate from the practice of culture that has successfully outlived the attempt of devalorization and disvalorization by capitalism or they could sprout out of the functional elements borrowed from capitalism (newborn) a case that Negri refers to as the “converse of disvalorization” as opposed to valorization (Osburn, 2006.). This concept may be well described as the digression of the domination elements into vehicles of emancipation borrowing from the situationist. Italian leftists Tronti et al. (1977) and the French situationists argue that refusal to work is a vital prerequisite or a necessary foundation for self-valorisation. The two concepts, therefore, share an intimate association with each other.
Bouissou and Tap (1998) submit that in the event, capitalism succeeds in turning the civilisation into a vast labour camp, self-valorisation is left with no time, space and energy for actualisation. However, the continuous agitation through refusal to work seen through the acquisition of space in the form of land or buildings and time in the form of paid vacations, weekends without work or non-work time on the job and energy crafts the selfsame likelihood of self-reconstruction. The author also points out that, unlike other approaches like socialist visualisations of communism and valorisation, self-construction embraces plurality through a multiplicity of projects considered independent. The concept opens up spaces for complete project fulfilment aligned to or those contrary to capitalism. Negro, therefore, complements his work to Marxism which advocated for the fact that self-reconstruction concept can disintegrate into numerous self-directed projects thereby embracing the intra-class independence held dear by autonomist Marxists (Lebowitz 2003.).
Buss (1979) argues that concept of plurality of self-actualisation has proved adaptable enough not only to accommodate the understanding but also the appreciation of a variety of struggles other ways considered beyond the working class, for instance, the struggle of the “urban marginals”. The current Marxist, unlike their traditional counterparts, have been able to align themselves with Marx, who in the course time was able to refine his philosophical biases about the peasants and recognised and appreciated the autonomy of their struggles and the diversity of the counter efforts against the struggles. Capitalism reconceptualisation requires self-valorisation a supplementation which enables the broadening valorisation within the “social factory” to its entirely (Davies, 2009). The result will be a refusal to a more significant extent and in effect an abundance in several divergent self- valorisation projects which take the created spaces after a successful confrontation of capitalism through refusal (Rogers 2009).
The Future in the Present
Wolfensberger (2002) in his submission documented that Marx’s theory reflects so much and focuses on the fact that any existence in whatever manner traces its origin from the present, some of his earlier public declarations of policies highlighted clearly that the organization of the new society owed its building blocks from the ancient norm (Geras 1987). These fundamental tenets of the knowledge were in existence in the old order but for reasons of self-actualisation became autonomous and consequently forged a different perspective as a new way of incorporating ideas and the ultimate engagement of factors of production. As a result, the resistance of the purported impossible concept introduced by outsiders erupted.
Marx’s stance on the subject matter was that the said re-organization of the lower class be carried out in a regular progressive manner and that the element of feeling be attached to the nature of transition so as to give the society a choice on where to make the relevant decision and cited that such internally instigated decision could be a platform where the ability to resist capitalism would be born and the quest to introduce a new interactive order would be borne. He went ahead to illustrate that the quest for the establishment of the new society must align its objectives with the present-day elements of distress (Rickard 1981).
Marx’s precious offer to the establishment of roughly an equivalent form of independence was fundamentally abstract in form. His endeavour to identify and internalise the factors emanating in resistance to capital and the sole hope that clarified a clear alternative made him develop a clear interest into the study of the labour processes which was ordinarily the capital’s primary means of social influence (Rickard 1981). Marx’s theory elaborated well the unique form of the independence of the intuition within the capitalist might, to him, such autonomy stood out and needed the world to give extra weighting to it, he termed it the labour that had life and joined a fellow theorist, Hegel in the declaration that the same particular aspect made humans stand out irrespective of any other factor from other things. It is to point out that the so-called living labour was the main subject of interest in the class struggle since its natural changing ability within a short notice was a primary cause of sheer hatred amongst the capitalist influence.
Marx witnessed the resistance to disable the imprisonment from the influence being initiated and the disobedience through intuitive living labour to manumit in the strongest terms possible from the external powers. It is quoted that the theory of living labour is to Marx the theory of freedom. As a result, the capital was necessitated regularly to conform to that natural hatred by vying to integrate the autonomous elements into its general restructuring processes. He goes ahead to state that while the process of integrating with others is directly related and has a connection to the future, the underlying attributes as aspects that are currently applied will experience tremendous alteration. Marx brought to mind the focus on the individualised personal development, theory considerations of workers changing the interactive labour of capitalism into associated labour but never managed to distinguish any clear present developments that can be highlighted as future elements (Laclau and Mouffe 1987).
Dualism as a form of interactive organisation is articulated by Marx as anti-ideas championing for disvalorisation into capitalism at the same time that pro autonomism. He touches on re-invention which is inclined socially; which involved traditional practices of cooperation in production and housing construction, collective cultivation of common meadows and common land ownership, his argument was that the collecting involvement would protect them from the negative capitalistic influence, the benefit of their collective labour would then instil individual development and ownership which would in turn usher in a new society (Thrift and Williams 2014).
Marx argued tendencies, one whose philosophy was orthodox of his ancient finding, which was depletion oriented and defined as the impoverishing – negated the contention against work and labeled it economistic, while the other tendency put into consideration the limitations involved in the first but was more of a combination of elements such as sadness and depression (Rickard 1981).
Conclusion
The investigation shows that Marx is not palpable in his address of internal logic and relevance of self-determination as a proxy for autonomous development in a manner that brings an obvious contribution as well as understanding. Given the fact that both historical and dialectical materialists subscribe to Marxism, therefore given the principle of widespread relevance, Marxism as a methodical prelude remains relevant to these materialistic concepts. Conversely, Marxism if presumed as a theoretical or political praxis within the bounds of capitalism confined to offering expediency in voicing the working class struggles within the society, it follows that the concepts and processes of self-valorisation and self- construction can only be grappled in their terms without a founding in Marxism.
The Marxist theory albeit has provided the knowledge on how a revolt can be forged against capitalism, the discomforts of such a process are abstruse given that, the emerging self- construction activities are grounded around capitalism. The liberation process though visible around us and part of us, the status quo fights back. For instance, as we fight to disentangle ourselves from the yoke of the bourgeois, scars are visible all around us an imprint of the brawl to free ourselves from capitalist imprisonment and the agitation to free the spaces and time delimited by the capitalist power structure. As the autonomous agitations continue, it does so in a capitalist exploited environment filled with capitalist aligned personalities and commodities shaped by the valorisation process. It is therefore correct that the post-capitalist world of self-construction is guaranteed to form in a society that is not void if the capitalist elements. The self-construction process is therefore strained to contend with the capitalist survivals for generations to come just like the modern capitalism is still compelled to deal with the pre-capitalist ideologies, to the degree that this is so, the Marxist theory of capitalism will be of continuing interest.
The study has also established that there is a greater need for creativity and imagination to discover and fathom the modern and fundamental intrinsic worth of self-valorising undertakings because the hoary theories of Mark and others may prove incapable to handle the transformation. Additionally, we can also anticipate the sprouting of new comprehension to be spawned as a fundamental part of the current projects. On the other hand, if plurality as a complex mixture of diverse ways of being of self-construction is anything to go by in a post-capitalist society, an individual bona fide partaking in these alternatives will be met by incapacity due to lack of comprehension and therefore appreciation of these alternative projects of self-valorisation from within. This scenario is unlike capitalist theorists who map their primary concepts onto any concepts within the social structure. To decrease such misgivings, the agitation and struggle for self-construction demand a refusal to such theoretical imperialism and movement towards more unrestricted, ingenious attempts to fathom new courses of being in their peculiar requisites. It is in this view that all the independent self-valorisation projects must be favoured whether they partake in them, or we play the role of external observers.
Where Marx’s concept of valorization draws our attention to the complex sequence of relationships through which capitalism renews itself as a social system of endlessly imposed work, so the idea of self-valorization draws our attention through the complexity of our refusal of valorization to our efforts to elaborate alternative autonomous projects which constitute the only possible source of a self-constituting alternative to capitalism.
The work has proved that while capitalism renews itself through the process of valorisation as a social system of endless work imposition, self-construction opens a window of refusal toward the capitalist tendencies in the effort of liberation and to forge alternative ways of being using independent projects. When the autonomy of self-valorisation is successfully subdued, the study or experience can blow the whistle on other endeavours of forging the future within the present. The lessons from the class struggles in the past have always shown that the recognition of the successes and lessons from the failures can be instrumental in constructing autonomous ways of being.
References
Acker, J., Baca-Zinn, M., Collins, P.H., Cox, O., Davis, K., Eells, K., Dill, B.T., DuBois, W.E.B., Engels, F., Hartmann, H. and Marx, K., 2006. Social class and stratification: Classic statements and theoretical debates. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Arestis, P. and Sawyer, M.C. eds., 2001. Money, finance and capitalist development. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Bowring, F., 2004. From the mass worker to the multitude: A theoretical contextualisation of Hardt and Negri’s Empire. Capital & Class, 28(2), pp.101-132.
Béraud, C., 2002. Les transformations du système de soins au cours des vingt dernières années: point de vue d’un acteur. Sciences sociales et santé, 20(4), pp.37-74.
Bouissou, C. and Tap, P., 1998. Parental education and the socialisation of the child: Internality, valorisation and self-positioning. European journal of psychology of education, 13(4), p.475.
Buss, A.R., 1979. Humanistic psychology as a liberal ideology: The socio-historical roots of Maslow’s theory of self-actualisation. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 19(3), pp.43-55.
Cleaver, H., 1992. The inversion of class perspective in Marxian theory: From valorisation to self-valorisation. Open Marxism, 2, pp.106-144.
Cleaver, H., 1994. Kropotkin, Self-valorization, and the Crisis of Marxism. Anarchist Studies, 2(2), pp.119-35.
Cayley, D., 1992. Ivan Illich in conversation: The Testament of Ivan Illich. House of Anansi.
Davis, J., 2009. Complementary research methods in humanistic and transpersonal psychology: A case for methodological pluralism. The Humanistic Psychologist, 37(1), pp.4-23.
Dinerstein, A., 1997. Marxism and Subjectivity: searching for the marvellous. (Prelude to a Marxist notion of action). In Common Sense (Vol. 22, pp. 83-96).
Geras, N., 1987. Post-marxism? New left a review, 163(1), pp.40-82.
Grant, S.A., 1976. Obshchina and mir. Slavic Review, 35(4), pp.636-651.
Homs, C., 2017. La pesadilla del marxismo tradicional. La Escuela de Frankfurt y el giro fallido del capitalismo post-liberal (1914-1970). Constelaciones. Revista de Teoría Crítica, 8(8-9), pp.99-145.
Illich, I. and Cayley, D., 1992. Ivan Illich in conversation. House of Anansi.
Jessop, B., 1997. Capitalism and it’s future: remarks on regulation, government and governance. Review of International Political Economy, 4(3), pp.561-581.
Kicillof, A. and Starosta, G., 2007. Value-form and the class struggle: A critique of the autonomist theory of value. Capital & Class, 31(2), pp.13-40.
Laclau, E. and Mouffe, C., 1987. Post-Marxism without apologies. New left a review, 166(11-12), pp.79-106.
Lebowitz, M.A., 2003. Beyond Capital?. In Beyond Capital (pp. 161-177). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
MacKenzie, D., 1984. Marx and the Machine. Technology and culture, 25(3), pp.473-502.
Marks, S.G., 2016. The information nexus: global capitalism from the Renaissance to the present. Cambridge University Press.
Osburn, J., 2006. An overview of social role valorisation theory. The SRV Journal, 1(1), pp.4-13.
Panzieri, R., 1980. The capitalist use of machinery: Marx versus the objectivists. Outlines of a Critique of Technology, pp.44-68.
Rickard, J., 1981. The middle class: What is to be done. Australian Historical Studies, 19(76), pp.446-453.
Rischin, R., 1994. Ivan Bunin: Russian Requiem, 1885-1920.
Rogers, M.L., 2009. Dewey, Pluralism, and Democracy: A Response to Robert Talisse. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society: A Quarterly Journal in American Philosophy, 45(1), pp.75-79.
Thrift, N. and Williams, P., 2014. Class and space (RLE social theory): The making of urban society. Routledge.
Tronti, M., Moulier, Y., Bezza, G., Cavazzini, A. and Carlino, F., 1977. Ouvriers et capital. Entremonde.
Valentine, C.A., 1976. CLASS AND ETHNICITY, MARXISM AND LUMPENISM: NOTES IN RESPONSE TO A CRITIQUE OF” VOLUNTARY ETHNICITY”. The Journal of Ethnic Studies, 4(3), p.53.
Wennerlind, C., 2002. The Labor Theory of Value and the strategic role of alienation. Capital & Class, 26(2), pp.1-21.
Wolfensberger, W., 2002. Social role valorisation and, or versus, “empowerment”. Mental Retardation, 40(3), pp.252-258.
Zhou, S., 2015. Suku and the Self-Valorization of Chinese Women Workers: Before, during, and after Enterprise Privatization. Frontiers of History in China, 10(1), pp.145-167.