[ show plain text ]
On Sun, 23 Jan 2000, Michael J Williams wrote:
> The problem with 'abstract embodied labour' is that it pays
> no attention to its own ontological commitment.
I disagree. The concept of abstract labour, as something that
exists outside of capitalist relations of production, carries an
ontological commitment to the existence of a "bearer" of a
capacity to labour at various tasks, i.e. of beings who have
evolved the sort of general intelligence and dexterity that
allows them to transfer their energies from one task to another
with a high degree of flexibility: us.
BTW, Michael, MS Outlook Express is forcing the "Reply to" field
of your postings to Michael Williams, not OPE-L, which makes it
a bit awkward if one wants to reply to the list rather than to
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 31 2000 - 07:00:09 EST