Jim Devine wrote: > > On 11/29/06, Angelus Novus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But abstract labour *is* an ideal! It is because > > commodities are exchanged through a universal medium > > (money) that their physical qualities are necessarily > > abstracted from in favor of a shared "essence." > > I disagree: abstract labor isn't an ideal or an essence as much as a > specific set of characteristics that are shared by all of the various > concrete labors in a commodity-producing society (the production of > use-values that can be exchanged for others). Capitalism tends to > reduce concrete labors to being nothing but these shared > characteristics (the real essence), of course. They try to get rid of > all aspects of concrete labor that do not contribute to producing > exchange-value (and surplus-value).
A quick note. I think AN did a terrible disservice to this discussion by using the term "ideal" here. Abstract labor is _not_ an ideal in any sense, any more than gravity is. Neither is visible nor can be touched. It is utterly confusing to use "ideal" simply because what is being named is not a physical feature of any physical object. Neither is it correct to say that money abstracts from the physical qualities of commodities, since it refers to their value (this is the relation that started this thread) and value is a social relation. It abstracts from social activity, not from the physical qualities of commodities. Carrol
