Sorry for brevity but I think there is something useful here: > 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. It is a transhistorical principle that any abstract concept is dependent upon the particulars that instantiate it. To allow for full independence of abstract labour from particulars, in the CMP, would be to contradict this principle. Once contradicted it could presumably be contradicted in other epochs. (Though maybe someone has a position that doesn't lead to this problem). To explore quasi-independence a different way: if abstract labour were fully independent then money could exist outside of its relationship with other commodities. But it can't. It's like Marx's example (in turn taken from Hegel) of a King having power only due to the actions of his subjects. In short, if abstract labour were fully independent it would not have to go through all the trouble of imposing itself through the exchange relation; it would be a sensuous thing like everything else. (again suggesting that it would be transhistorical). > > > > 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). I was thinking of the everyday case abstractions (production in general, distribution in general, labour in general, etc.). Sure, there is more to 'abstact labour' in the CMP than this, on both your own view and mine. > michael >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jul 15 2001 - 10:56:29 EDT