Levels of Abstraction: A Tool for Dialectical Analysis
Guglielmo Carchedi proposes a method for reconstructing relations of production based on levels of abstraction. This approach allows for the separation of the fundamental logic of capital from historical and political phenomena. At the highest level, we analyze the pure relationship between labor and capital, while at lower levels, we can identify hybrid formations and concrete decisions made under market pressure.
The Function of Capital vs. the Function of the Collective Worker
The function of the collective worker encompasses every technical operation necessary to produce use-value. It is contrasted with the function of capital, which involves surveillance and control aimed solely at the appropriation of surplus value. Carchedi demystifies the myth of management neutrality: under capitalism, surveillance is a class function rather than a technical requirement for cooperation.
The New Middle Class: A Hybrid of Contradictory Class Functions
The new middle class is a hybrid formation. Its members do not own the means of production, yet they simultaneously perform the functions of both the worker and capital. This duality makes them both exploiters and exploited, generating structural tensions within their professional identity.
Surveillance: A Class Function of Capital, Not a Neutral Technique
Modern business replaces class language with the term "competencies," yet the underlying mechanics remain the same. Control as a mechanism for enforcing labor intensity is historically tied to the antagonism of production. If labor were self-managed, surveillance would take the form of pure technical coordination.
Economic Ownership vs. Formal Legal Title
Carchedi distinguishes legal ownership (formal title) from economic ownership (real power over production). In corporations, agents without shares exercise power identical to that of capital. This disconnect allows for the strategic blurring of responsibility for errors within procedural structures.
Algorithmic Management Automates the Function of Capital
Algorithmic management shifts surveillance from interpersonal relationships into the sphere of code. Systems do not merely optimize schedules; they become tools for sanctions and discipline. In this way, technology absorbs the function of capital, eliminating the need for human supervision.
The Impersonality of Capital: Algorithmic Organizational Control
In monopoly capitalism, capital takes on the face of KPIs and audits. This impersonality is convenient for the system because it paralyzes conflict—it is harder to fight an algorithm than a specific owner. Human resource management replaces open class struggle.
Algorithms Abstract Class Conflict into Code
Technology does not eliminate antagonism; it abstracts it. Whoever controls the evaluation criteria in the system controls the process of surplus appropriation. The algorithm becomes a cold tool for accumulation, hiding the political nature of decisions behind a mask of statistics.
Procedural Legitimacy Stabilizes Modern Business
Organizational stability relies on procedural legitimacy. Managers believe in their autonomous agency, while they are merely carriers of functions delegated by the system. Procedure becomes a battlefield for recognition and the right to autonomy.
Proletarianization: The Degradation of New Middle-Class Functions
When technology takes over surveillance, the proletarianization of the new middle class occurs. The agent loses their distinguishing feature (the function of capital), and their labor is reduced to average labor. This is a functional process, not a cultural one—structural degradation occurs despite the possession of degrees.
Exploitation vs. Oppression: The Boundary of Surplus Value Production
Carchedi precisely separates exploitation (the production of surplus value) from economic oppression. The latter occurs where labor is socially necessary but does not generate monetary profit for capital, which is crucial for analyzing the public sector.
CSA and Non-CSA Sectors: The Division of State Employees
The state operates on two tracks: in the CSA (Capitalist State Activities) sector, it functions like a private, profit-oriented entrepreneur. In the non-CSA sector, it fulfills social needs. State employees are subject to the same class divisions as the private sector, depending on their function.
The State's Non-Capitalist Sector Supports Reproduction
Non-capitalist institutions (hospitals, schools) fund the reproduction of labor power. Although they do not produce surplus value, they are a condition for the possibility of accumulation throughout the system. Savings in these spheres generate costs that are shifted onto the entire economy.
Carchedi vs. Wright and Poulantzas: The Debate over the Middle Class
Unlike Wright (who focused on position) and Poulantzas (who emphasized ideology), Carchedi focuses on the function in the labor process. This avoids sociological sentimentalism and reveals the ruthless logic behind the degradation of professional groups.
The Technicization of Surveillance: Scenarios for Automated Control
The future of work involves three scenarios: hard technicization (increased intensity), dual segmentation (a new aristocracy of meta-surveillance), or prudent reform (algorithmic transparency). Each is an attempt to organizationally shift the costs of inevitable conflict.
Summary
Carchedi’s theory reminds us that in the age of algorithms, the struggle for control over labor merely changes form. The digital metamorphosis of capitalism reduces managers to carriers of procedures and workers to data points in a system. Will the impersonality of the algorithm open space for new emancipation, or will it finally close the surveillance system? The answer depends on who takes control of the criteria for digital surveillance.
📄 Full analysis available in PDF