From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Thu May 22 2003 - 05:12:59 EDT
Ian Wright wrote: > However, I think you are onto > something important when you emphasise that "abstract labour" > isn't a pure abstraction, as perhaps some value-form theorists > may claim, but in fact has "substance", i.e. has a material, > not just abstract, ontological status. I agree, but would put > the matter slightly differently: "abstract labour" is a > representation within capitalism that refers to the common > properties of "concrete labour", and there are systematic > causal relationships between the two. I would generally agree with this presentation. But would add that a key factor of human labour is its flexibility we are 'RUR', we are the universal robot, the universal worker. What gives abstract labour a reality is this human adapability. This is why the labour of horses or cattle, useful though they have been to farmers and teamsters, can not be treated as abstract except in the abstract sense of horse-power. > > > _________________________________________________________________ > MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus -- Paul Cockshott Dept Computing Science University of Glasgow 0141 330 3125
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 23 2003 - 00:00:01 EDT