While it can be argued that Lukacs and Adorno’s theories of second nature provide analysis of the constitution and constituents of social domination that are lacking in Marx’s model of capital at its ideal average. It seems to me it might be more fruitful to provide a theory of second nature that is based on what Marx notes is lacking in his analysis:
in presenting the reification of the relations of production and the autonomy they acquire vis-a.-vis the agents of production, we shall not go into the form and manner in which these connections appear to them as overwhelming natural laws, governing them irrespective of their will, in the form that the world market and its conjunctures, the movement of market prices, the cycles of industry and trade and the alternation of prosperity and crisis prevails on them as blind necessity. This is because the actual movement of competition lies outside our plan, and we are only out to present the internal organization of the capitalist mode of production, its ideal average, as it were.
This could potentially give: (a) a coherent account of the genesis and movement of second nature (b) provide a gap between theoretical systematic accounts of capital and empirically specific accounts. (c) introduce an account of contingency. The later strikes me as lacking in accounts, such as Adorno’s, that are premised on the golden age of Fordist integration but is currently a necessary facet of capital’s reproduction.
Just something I’m throwing out there.