AS1

Submission date: 27-Nov-2016 11:50PM (UT C+0000)

Submission ID: 62917168
File name: AS1_Frido_Wenten_277323_2080839290.pdf (116.3K)
Word count: 3441
Character count: 18631
AS1 Frido Wenten
GRADEMARK REPORT

FINAL GRADE GENERAL COMMENTS

Instructor

72
T his is a very good essay, with some minor
f laws. T hese mainly reside in the absence of a
central argument; and the suggestive – though
typically neo-Marxist – writing style and f orm. See
f urther individual comments below.

/100
It would have been advisable to have an explicit
argument in the introduction, as well as a clearer
“structure of the argument” part.

On the continuation of the alienated theme f rom

the young to the old Marx in the idea of primitive
accumulation I am not too sure how usef ul that
is. Sure, the separation f rom the means of
production can be interpreted as alienation, but I
am always sceptical of what exactly is gained by
stretching the categories wider and wider
(primitive accumulation and alienation are
ominipresent – ok, and now? What exactly does
that illuminate? Probably a moral critique, but I
don’t f ind it particularly usef ul analytically. T hat is
also my problem with the sweeping statements
of de Angelis and the like…). T here are also
signif icant changes in Marx’s thinking that I think
need to be ackowledged – f or example his
abandonment of the idea of a “Gattungswesen”
af ter the 1840s – which make it dif f icult to
translate the early notion of alienation into the
mature Marx. (On the other hand, there even is
the idea of alienation without a subject, that
Balibar once came up with…) Point being: you
can go down the route of allegoric writing of the
de Angelis type, but be aware of the limitations
that entails.

Form:

Personally I like the more casual and polemic

writing style you employ, but be caref ul – not
 everyone f avours that, particularly in the boring
dry world of academia… In particular, make sure
that you still provide a strong analysis and do
not cover up lack of clarity by jargon or polemic.

Advice:

T here are no problems of understanding here,

so mostly I think you might want to ref lect on
f orm, style and presentation. One issue is: you
need a central argument. T he other is: ref lect on
what is gained by stretching the categories. T he
more you want to include and cover, the more
you run the danger of drif ting f rom political
economic analysis into poetry. T he reason is that
you import a teleology – we already know that
the end result will be: it’s primitive accumulation,
capitalism, the working class etc. T here is little
that can be analytically illuminated beyond that,
which is why the writing has to be spiced up by
polemic style or sweeping political statements
(but what political strategy do you actually derive
f rom “it’s primitive accumulation everywhere!” ?).
A f ocus on the dif f erences and nuances within
capitalism/primitive accumulation/working class
could instead enable you to arrive at interesting
analytical and not just polemical conclusions,
which might ultimately enable better political
strategy. (if it’s not real clear what I mean here,
maybe read Steve Wright’s “Storming Heaven” on
the emerging split between the early operaists
and Negriists f or an example). Anyway, these are
only some pointers you might want to consider in
the f uture. Overall, this remains a very good
essay.

PAGE 1

PAGE 2

PAGE 3

PAGE 4

PAGE 5

PAGE 6

PAGE 7
PAGE 8