Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Theoretical commentary uncovers structural links between capitalism, patriarchy, and state power, highlighting the need for a relational framework to evaluate distinct systems of domination.
By expanding Marx's original formulation, Cowan reconceptualizes subsumption as a historically and geographically contingent process through which capital organizes diverse social relations and offers a compelling account of the uneven, differentiated, and spatially variegated development of capitalism. Building on these insights, this commentary explores the broader theoretical implications of subsumption for examining the relationship between capitalism and other enduring structures of power. I argue that a comprehensive critique of domination requires understanding capitalism and other systems of domination, such as patriarchy and state power, not as a singular, unified matrix of oppression but as distinct social systems possessing irreducible ontologies that nevertheless become structurally articulated in concrete social formations. Such a critique demands a relational framework capable of analyzing how multiple forms of domination intersect and reshape one another while preserving their analytical specificity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Siyuan Yin (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: