From: Ian Wright (ian_paul_wright@HOTMAIL.COM)
Date: Thu May 22 2003 - 15:58:21 EDT
Hello Paul, >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. You are right to add something because I did not state what "common properties" of human concrete labour allow it to be represented as abstract labour. My thoughts are not fully formed on this point. Although humans do approximate universal machines, at least in terms of their competence, if not performance, I do not think your answer is the right one, primarily because this property is "technical", rather than social-relational. However, it is true that horses, machines, natural mechanisms etc. are not as adaptable as us, and this partly explains why we do not treat them as equal property owners within our social relations of production. -Ian. _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 23 2003 - 00:00:01 EDT