Tom Kruse writes: >"The example of 'labor' strikingly shows how even the most abstract categories ... are a product of historical conditions and retain their validity only for and within the framework of these conditions." Marx, Zur Kritik der Politischen Oekonomie >Don Carlos a standpoint epistemologist?< Yes, in the sense that he would say that capitalism (for example) is perceived in different ways by people in different class positions. (I like Edward Bellamy's metaphor here, at the start of LOOKING BACKWARDS.) But he wouldn't stop there but would instead call for (and actually apply) a dialectical method in an effort to get beyond individual standpoints and to gain a conception of the totality. But the quote above (IMHO) is about how the actual institution of "labor" is different in different historical contexts. It's not about epistemology as much as about the actual functioning of labor (a matter of ontology, what is posited as actually happening). The abstract concept of "labor" corresponds to real-world "labor in general." How labor in general actually functions depends on the historical context, especially the mode of exploitation (or non-exploitation) of labor. In chapter 7 of volume I of CAPITAL, you can see this in Marx's division of the chapter into two parts: first, Marx talks about labor in general (the production of use-values). Then he talks about labor specifically under capitalism (the production of surplus-value). Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/jdevine.html
