Capital precedes and shapes resistance rather than resistance driving capital

Evidence

The sequence is obviously the other way round: capital (and its multitudinous “penetrations”) comes first, and only then can “resistance” to it develop, even though it might be pretty to think otherwise. (“The association of the workers as it appears in the factory is not posited by them but by capital. Their combination is not their being, but the being of capital. To the individual worker it appears fortuitous. He relates to his own association with other workers and to his cooperation with them as alien, as to modes of operation of capital,” [Karl Marx, Grundrisse, Collected Works, volume 28 (New York, 1986), p. 505 ]). — Fredric Jameson, Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic…, 923

Categorization

• XREF: This Marxist priority-of-capital claim connects to the Milgrom/Roberts work on how market institutions structure action, and to the reader’s interest in tracing how economic structures produce cultural forms. — connects to: Financial accumulation depends on resistance rather than pure top-down power — Max Haiven, Cultures of Financialization, 500; Financialization responds to worker and anti-colonial resistance by making capital more mobile — Max Haiven, Cultures of Financialization, 501; Capitalists collaborate through finance because they feel threatened by resistance — Max Haiven, Cultures of Financialization, 501 (+14 more)
• QUESTION: Worth chasing: does this causal claim (capital first, resistance second) hold up against the reader’s push for falsifiability of the cultural-dominant thesis?