IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.
You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it.
On Sun, 23 Jan 2000, Michael J Williams wrote: > The problem with 'abstract embodied labour' is that it pays > no attention to its own ontological commitment. I disagree. The concept of abstract labour, as something that exists outside of capitalist relations of production, carries an ontological commitment to the existence of a "bearer" of a capacity to labour at various tasks, i.e. of beings who have evolved the sort of general intelligence and dexterity that allows them to transfer their energies from one task to another with a high degree of flexibility: us. Allin Cottrell. BTW, Michael, MS Outlook Express is forcing the "Reply to" field of your postings to Michael Williams, not OPE-L, which makes it a bit awkward if one wants to reply to the list rather than to you personally.
- [OPE-L:2278] Re: value-form theories, (continued)
- [OPE-L:2278] Re: value-form theories, Gerald Levy Sun 23 Jan 2000, 16:08 GMT
- [OPE-L:2284] Re: Re: value-form theories, clyder Mon 24 Jan 2000, 10:03 GMT
- [OPE-L:2285] Re: value-form theories, Gerald Levy Mon 24 Jan 2000, 12:29 GMT