Andy: > If you say that abstract labour is fully separate from / independent > of concrete labour, then you are stuck with what must be a > transhistorical concept of value. Though I do not say this, I would be interested in your reasons why abstract labour independent of concrete labour must thereby be trans-historical. > > If you say that abstract labour is a mere aspect of concrete labour, > then, again, you are stuck with a transhistorical conception of value. No 'mere' about it. Actual labour under capitalism is, concretely the necessary contradictory unity of value-creating labour and specific (use-value producing) labour. Thus 'aspect' may be better rendered as 'moment' here. Such a contradictory unity is characteristic of Capitalism (whatever similar partial, prefigurative and embryonic forms of it may have existed earlier). michael
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jul 15 2001 - 10:56:29 EDT