In which Postone lays out that what I am keen to see in his reconstruction of Marx are outside the bounds of his study, even though it seemed to me that this was initially what he set up:
Although I have shown that Marx relates the antagonistic character of industrial production to the dual imperatives of valorization, a full explanation of how these dual imperatives are effected—that is, how the drive for increased productivity in capitalism is such that, on a total social level, direct human labor is retained as an integral element of production—would exceed the bounds of this work. That would require explaining how value operates as a socially constituted form of abstract domination, although the actors are unaware of its existence. Such an explanation would, in turn, require an elucidation of Marx’s analysis of the dialectic of structure and action, hence, a deeper investigation of the relationship between his level of analysis in Volume 1 and that in Volume 3 of Capital.111
Seems fairer to say TLSD is about clearing the ground with Postone trying to draw a line in the sand between his interpretation and traditional Marxism. Thus his focus on outlining his approach and contrasting it with traditional Marxism. But it seems to me that much of this would be unnecessary if he engaged with much of the value-form work that had been published prior to 1993 and that further work which does substantiate the above is needed.