Subject: [OPE-L:1682] Re: RE: Re: value-form theories and the Uno-school?
From: nicola taylor (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Nov 15 1999 - 12:05:33 EST
I did not so much *misunderstand* your work, as say something silly.
Appologies. What i meant to say was that you all share a view of 'value'
as specific to capitalism [hope this is right?].
But now i have a question about your view of abstract labour as an
ahistorical concept. Is this not confusing concepts of 'abstract labour'
and 'social labour'? By 'abstract labour' i mean an abstraction from
use-values that takes place only when commodities are exchanged. By
'commodities' i mean products that are produced only under social
conditions of division of labour and private property. By 'social labour'
i mean the necessary distribution of labour among individuals in any
society (capitalist or other; such as the distribution of labour between
catching beaver and dear, or between producing cars and sausages). In this
sense, I hold to my original statement that 'abstract labour' is the form
that social labour takes under capitalism (only this time, i'm not
attributing that view to you!).
If the value of a commodity is not realised, then labour is wasted in both
its concrete and abstract moments. You seem to be saying, however, that
(1) value is inseparable from the form of value, but (2) abstract labour is
separable from the form of value. It seems therefore that you mean by
'abstract labour', what i mean by 'social labour'. Is this correct?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Sun Dec 12 1999 - 17:29:14 EST