Das (2012) proposes to apply Marx’s account of the subsumption of labor under capital, concerning levels of capitalist control of production, in addressing questions regarding the definition of capitalism and the nature and forms of economic development in agrarian economies, and to use the recent economic experience of Indian agriculture for empirical illustration. This comment raises several issues with regard to Das’s reading of Marx’s account and his application of that account in assessing Indian agricultural development.
ArthurC.2009. The possessive spirit of capital: Subsumption/inversion/contradiction. In Re-reading Marx: New perspectives after the critical edition, ed. BellofioreR.FineschiR., 148-162. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
2.
BasoleA.BasuD.2011a. Relations of production and modes of surplus extraction in India: Part I—Agriculture. Economic and Political Weekly46 (14): 41-58.
3.
BasoleA.BasuD.2011b. Relations of production and modes of surplus extraction in India: Part II—‘Informal’ industry. Economic and Political Weekly46 (15): 63-79.
DasR.2012. Reconceptualizing capitalism: Forms of subsumption of labor, class struggle, and uneven development. Review of Radical Political Economics44: 178-200.
6.
GhoshM.2006. Regional convergence in Indian agriculture. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics61: 610-629.
7.
JhaB.2006. Employment, wages, and productivity in Indian agriculture. Delhi: Institute of Economic Growth.
8.
KumarA.2001. Indian agriculture: Issues and prospects. New Delhi: Sarup & Sons.
9.
KumarP.KumarA.MittalS.2004. Total factor productivity of crop sector in the Indo-Gangetic plain of India: Sustainability issues revisited. Indian Economic Review39: 169-201.
10.
KumarP.MittalS.2006. Agricultural productivity trends in India: Sustainability issues. Agricultural Economics Research Review19: 71-88.
11.
KumarR.2005. Constraints facing Indian agriculture: Need for policy intervention. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics60: 49-59.
12.
LercheJ.2010. From ‘rural labour’ to ‘classes of labour’: Class fragmentation, caste and class struggle at the bottom of the Indian labour hierarchy. In The comparative political economy of development: Asia and South Africa, ed. Harriss-WhiteB.HeyerJ., 66-87. London: Routledge.
13.
MarxK.1973. Grundrisse: Introduction to the critique of political economy [GR]. New York: Random House.
14.
MarxK.1990. Capital: A critique of political economy, vol. I [K.I]. Hammondsworth: Penguin Books.
15.
MarxK.1991. Capital: A critique of political economy, vol. III [K.III]. Hammondsworth: Penguin Books.
16.
MarxK.EngelsF.1988. Collected works, vol. 30 [MECW 30]. New York: International Publishers.
17.
MarxK.EngelsF.1989a. Collected works, vol. 31 [MECW 31]. New York: International Publishers.
18.
MarxK.EngelsF.1989b. Collected works, vol. 32 [MECW 32]. New York: International Publishers.
19.
MarxK.EngelsF.1991. Collected works, vol. 33 [MECW 33]. New York: International Publishers.
20.
MarxK.EngelsF.1994. Collected works, vol. 34 [MECW 34]. New York: International Publishers.
21.
MurrayP.2009. The place of ‘The results of the immediate production process’ in Capital. In Re-reading Marx: New perspectives after the critical edition, ed. BellofioreR.FineschiR., 163-177. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
22.
RobertsW.2009. Abstraction and productivity: Reflections on formal causality. In Marx and contemporary philosophy, ed. ChittyA.McIvorM., 188-204. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
23.
SinghA.PalS.2010. The changing pattern and sources of agricultural growth in India. In The shifting patterns of agricultural production and productivity worldwide, ed. AlstonJ.BabcockB.PardeyP., 315-342. Ames, IA: Midwest Agribusiness Trade Research and Information Center.
24.
SkillmanG.2013. The puzzle of Marx’s missing ‘results’: A tale of two theories. History of Political Economy45: 475-504.
