[ show plain text ]
I apologize in advance if the following questions are stupid
questions. Thanks, however, for your answers.
At 20:43 +0100 29-04-2000, Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
>Riccardo, here is an attempt at clarification:
>Money as category mistake: the one commodity which in its bodily shape
>incarnates a conceptual property (abstract labor) or the equivalence class
>itself of which all commodities are members.
Do you think abstract labor is a 'conceptual property'? You seem to be in
favor of Colletti. Does not this definition goes against his view of
abstract labor as real abstraction?
>Mysteries of commodities: by their exchangeability against money, all
>thingly commodities prove themselves to be material and conceptual,
>sensuous and supra-sensuous things.
>We can argue that these violations of the principles of non-contradiction
>(member and class, thing and concept) are resolved through Hegel's logic.
Why resolved? It's not better to say: expressed?
>But this would then dispense with Marx's critique of the metaphysically
>illformed nature of reality if it is through things that our social labor
>is organized. Once we realize this the necromancy of commodities
This makes me that actually you think of revolution as some kind of therapy
(I don't want to be outrageous, I'm just trying to understand).
BTW: the more and more I think that, once the capitalist system is fully
constituted and the phase of real subordination of labor to capital is
reached, alienation on the market is *dependent* on the living labor of the
wage worker being asbtract labor in the capitalist production process,
rather than the other way round. This is a point Colletti never reached.
Office: Department of Economics
Piazza Rosate, 2
I-24129 Bergamo, Italy
Home: Via Massena, 51
I-10128 Torino, Italy
e-mail email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
tel: +39 035 277545 (direct)
+39 035 277501 (dept. secr.)
+39 011 5819619 (home)
fax: +39 035 249975
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 30 2000 - 19:59:45 EDT