It now seems safe to say that, as much as Memory is a project about work, one through which we can read the profound restructuring of work and work life taking place in the 1970s, it is also a project about technology because the history of labor in capitalism is always also, in part, a history of technology. Truly capitalist labor is labor constantly remade and refashioned—become more productive, more intense, more plastic—through changing technological means. It is labor that has been “really subsumed,” as we have seen, remade in accord with the exigencies and needs of capital and the profit drive. Indeed, we might say that capitalism proper—what Marx calls the “specifically capitalist mode of production”—really begins only at the moment in which the owners of capital begin to reinvest their profits in new labor-saving technology to extract even greater profits.49 This virtuous circle of reinvestment—profit that, by way of new more highly productive machinery, produces greater profits—is what characterizes capitalist accumulation. And therefore, since any account of the restructuring of labor in the postwar period must be, in part, an account of changing technical means, it should come as no surprise that Memory so explicitly foregrounds the role of technology from its very first pages: