I dislike the notion of "tool box" just like i dislike the "theoretical phramework"
here: "It may also appear that the revolutionary powers of the working class cannot spring from the subsumption of the worker in capital but, on the contrary, from outside it. From this point of view, it would seem that if capital were the one that determined the workers' consciousness, if it were the whole in the determination of the working class, it should not find strength to liberate from it. It would thus appear that the ability of the working class to overcome the capitalist mode of production can only come from its "autonomy" from it. However, capital is the general social relationship of the working class, that is, the general way in which it - whether it wants it or not - organizes the social production of its life. And this general social relation of his has been inverted as the concrete objectified subject of social production. Capital determines both the working class and its attribute that it is capable of depriving a growing part of it of its natural life. Thus, in order to have a revolutionary power alien to the capitalist mode of production that could impose on it, the working class would have to be the bearer of an even more general social relationship than this mode of production, from which that power arose. Or, put another way, capital should not be the general social relation of the working class, but a concrete form of a way of organizing the production of human life more generic than itself. As it is more than evident that such a social relationship does not exist, the conceptions about the autonomy of the workers' conscience follow two paths. The first consists in founding the revolutionary powers of the working class in a libertarian or egalitarian spirit, a desire to recover the "meaning" of work, imputed to an abstract human nature. Spirits and desires that are adorned with enough power to bypass the way in which humanity has actually been able to organize its material life up to the present. Thus, the "self-valorization" that Negri proposes to the working class arises by case.10 The second way consists in reducing the supposed autonomy of the workers' consciousness to the condition of "relative". The whole secret of relative autonomy comes down to affirming that the accumulation of capital determines the workers 'consciousness, but that, in turn, the workers' consciousness influences the accumulation of capital, although this determines it in the last instance. Thus, the consciousness of the working class has ceased to be a necessary concrete way of realizing the general social relationship. This unit has ideally been replaced by an exterior back and forth. So much so that the attempt to explain the relative autonomy by the movement of a dog chained to a post can be done. Along this path, it ends up concluding that everything determines everything and, therefore, that nothing determines nothing. Thus erasing all real necessity, one goes on to affirm, as Althusser does, that revolutionary action is one provided with a revolutionary "doctrine", and that this is such if it promotes revolutionary action. capitalist production appears to have its need reduced to the abstract development of consciousness.