Alfredo asks in 6903: > >--Is slave labour *abstract labour*? If so, under what circumstances (i.e., >more generally, what makes labour *abstract*); if not, how is this compatible >with the obvious fact that slaves in the New World produced commodities for >the world market? Slave labor was abstract labor because it produced commodities for money such that capital was valorized and in turn debt obligations could be met, other commodities acquired and money hoards formed. If one focuses on the realm of circulation and the form of exploitation, one can miss the relation of production--in this case the capital positing nature of much slave and otherwise formally unfree labor. As Alfredo underlines, i am most certainly not arguing that all slaves and all formally unfree workers produce value and capital. Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu May 02 2002 - 00:00:08 EDT