![to put down a group subsume to put down a group subsume](https://image3.slideserve.com/6752059/principal-regions-of-origin-senegambia-cont-d1-l.jpg)
By getting the worker to produce more than he can himself consume, the Capitalist can extract a ‘surplus-value’.
![to put down a group subsume to put down a group subsume](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/70/58/72/7058720461d7d8c5e4d9a8c105017ea1--texts-robert-richard.jpg)
As a root for each of the thinkers, Marx contended that value is borne through human activity. To begin this essay, it is important to see what this theory of subsumption is and how it constructs how the different thinkers have approached the limit of Capital. Thus I aim to show how Žižek demands a return of agency to re-politicise the mass of working people across the world in order for us to break out of the loop of Capitalist subsumption. By contrasting Negri and Hardt with Žižek, I wish to show how not only they have been wrong when considering the immanent contradictions in capital, but how their failure inversely feeds back into Capitalist subsumption and reproduction. However, in the next section I will explain how the two theories diverge fundamentally on the question of immanent contradiction. Essentially both theories emerge from an understanding of Marx. I will do this by first explaining how Negri, Hardt and Žižek look at Capital’s subsumption of productive labour.
![to put down a group subsume to put down a group subsume](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/81/f9/9b/81f99bf0ced67e3301428ecc629c4009--portfolio-site-solar.jpg)
Thus I aim to contrast Negri and Hardt’s disavowed determinism with Žižek’s Leninism. In this essay my aim is to show how both of the two competing theories of Capitalist subsumption of production in the end make for the two very different theories of the limits of Capital. For Žižek the opposite applies the contradictions immanent to capitalism create the very basis for its existence. To put it simply, for Negri and Hardt, the contradictions that are immanent to capitalism produce its destruction. Past the two competing sets of theoretical jargon they use, at the heart is a differing diagnosis of the nature and limitations of Capital. However, a more detailed analysis points to a radical difference between them. Essentially for all the writers, Capital ruins people’s lives. They both start from Marx, claim that the real battle today is still against Capital and fight against the post-political realm of ordering and administration. If one is to superficially gaze over both arguments, it would seem that Negri and Hardt and Žižek are batting for the same team.