Asfilho@aol.com wrote: > I like a lot of the things that Rakesh says in , with respect to > slavery and value-form. Perhaps one way to link the two strands of the debate > is through the following question: > > --Is slave labour *abstract labour*? If so, under what circumstances (i.e., > more generally, what makes labour *abstract*); if not, how is this compatible > with the obvious fact that slaves in the New World produced commodities for > the world market? Yes it is abstract. For labour to be abstract it has to be potentially realisable in multiple different concrete forms - harvesting, planting, hoeing, smithing etc. Slave labour both in classical antiquity and in ante-bellum usa had these characteristics. The abstract labour was at the direction of the slave owner who determined what concretely the slave had to do. > > > This question was raised by Duncan in , a long time ago - but he raised > it as a *question*, and no clear answer was provided by the debate on the > list. > > alfredo.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu May 02 2002 - 00:00:08 EDT