From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Thu Oct 06 2005 - 12:20:26 EDT
At 4:55 PM +0100 10/6/05, Andrew Brown wrote: >Hi Rakesh, > >You write as if embodiment and congealment are the same thing. > >["If this is true, value cannot be the labor actually expended or >embodied or congealed in the production of the commodity."] > >I can see what you are getting at but I'd want to say that if you follow >through the logic that the labour is 'congealed' (rather than embodied) >then this same logic tells us that this is 'purely social labour' (all >individuality has been abstracted from along with all natural >materiality) and hence we can anticipate that it isn't fixed >individually but socially and changes accordingly. To the extent that it >is congealed, it is social, it is a *peculiar* social substance, unlike >natural substances in respect of its being changed socially (amongst >other things). I shall backtrack and study your distinction between embodiment and congealment. While I have been conflating them, I don't think the point I am making perhaps in philosophically flat language however is that far from yours. Or Marx's rb >Andy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Oct 07 2005 - 00:00:01 EDT