[ show plain text ]
>>I think Marx conceives the C-M-C and the M-C-M' as real time, historical
>>processes which cannot be collapsed into an "instantaneous", "logical"
>Hm. I think that at the early levels of abstraction the question of time is
>not important; what is important is the 'distribution' of the moments of
>value; C is its particularity, M its universality, and their unification in
>an individual is achieved in the metamorphoses, certainly a process rather
>then a synchronic relation to be sure.
I cannot imagine a "level of abstraction" in Capital in which time is not
important. Marx always analyses *processes* and those procesees are
embedded in time, are historical processes. The commodity itself cannot be
undestood, imo, out of time. Any commodity is a result of a production
process and that production took some time in the past. The capital cycle,
at any "level of abstraction" you examine it, is embedded in time. You have
a starting point and an ending point, and what makes the difference is the
time elapsed. So, as you say in the last part of the above piece, the
"unification is achieved in the metamorphoses", i.e. as a temporal process.
So, I don't see at what "early level of abstraction" you can abstract from
time in Marx's analysis.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 30 2000 - 19:59:43 EDT