Hi Andy, Thanks for your post. A few brief response below. On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Andrew Brown wrote: > Hi Fred, > > But abstract labour only becomes a (quasi) 'distinct entity' in > capitalism, and then it is a mighty peculiar 'entity' at that. I certainly agree with that. > Following > Murray, (congealed) abstract labour does not behove to a logic of > 'being', a logic of *things* as we ordinarily know them, rather it > behoves to a logic of essence. Essence is non-sensuous. But Essence exists, doesn't it, even though non-sensuous? > Hence, > essence must necessarily appear as something other than itself. In > fact it must appear as something directly opposite to itself. It must > appear as a *sensuous* thing! So, money and congealed abstract > labour are direct opposites. But it doesn't make alot of sense to > say they are distinct entities, since the latter (congealed abstract > labour) gains existence only through the former (money). Money is > the 'realisation' or the 'actualisation' of congealed abstract labour. > They are *immediately* opposite but *mediately* identical. I would say abstract labor becomes observable through money, rather that "gains existence" through money. > This is partly the reason for my phrase, 'quasi-separate' existence > of abstract labour, which I think more accurate than your own > exposition. "'Quasi-separate' existence" might be a better way of saying "exists, but necessarily connected." > But the important point upon which we are in full > agreement, I hope, is that abstract labour time tethers price > magnitude; the immediate opposition opens up this crucial > distinction between the two magnitudes, the mediate identity > confirms their connection. This requires that specific quantities of abstract labor exist in some way independently of prices, does it not? > I do hope this makes at least a modicum of sense! I think it makes a lot of sense. Comradely, Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jul 15 2001 - 10:56:29 EDT