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.
Hi Rakesh, You write as if embodiment and congealment are the same thing. ["If this is true, value cannot be the labor actually expended or embodied or congealed in the production of the commodity."] I can see what you are getting at but I'd want to say that if you follow through the logic that the labour is 'congealed' (rather than embodied) then this same logic tells us that this is 'purely social labour' (all individuality has been abstracted from along with all natural materiality) and hence we can anticipate that it isn't fixed individually but socially and changes accordingly. To the extent that it is congealed, it is social, it is a *peculiar* social substance, unlike natural substances in respect of its being changed socially (amongst other things). Andy
- [OPE-L] Hegel's and Smith's historical materialism?, (continued)
- [OPE-L] Hegel's and Smith's historical materialism?, Gerald_A_Levy Thu 06 Oct 2005, 13:47 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Hegel's and Smith's historical materialism?, Christopher Arthur Thu 06 Oct 2005, 20:34 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Ricardo and Marx on embodiment, Andrew Brown Thu 06 Oct 2005, 11:27 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Ricardo and Marx on embodiment, Andrew Brown Thu 06 Oct 2005, 12:12 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Ricardo and Marx on embodiment, Andrew Brown Thu 06 Oct 2005, 15:56 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Ricardo and Marx on embodiment, Rakesh Bhandari Thu 06 Oct 2005, 16:20 GMT
- [OPE-L] [Jurriaan re] The "intermediation society" and the "soul of capitalism", glevy Tue 04 Oct 2005, 20:55 GMT
- [OPE-L] Was Marx afraid of Ghosts?, Gerald_A_Levy Tue 04 Oct 2005, 16:05 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Was Marx afraid of Ghosts?, Riccardo Bellofiore Tue 04 Oct 2005, 16:15 GMT