Dear James:
--- "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> I agree: Marx was "deliberately" abstracting in a
> way that (he thought) reflected the actual
> process under capitalism. In my very short précis, I
> was only summarizing one part of his
> approach and its actual application. I was
-Original Message-
> From: Matías Scaglione [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 6:07 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PEN-L] Marx "abstraction" [was Query: critique of production
> functions -clarification-]
>
>
> Dear
atías Scaglione" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 12:06 AM
Subject: Marx "abstraction" [was Query: critique of production
functions -clarification-]
Dear James:
On Marx's use of "abstraction" in Capital I you
Dear James:
On Marx's use of "abstraction" in Capital I you wrote:
> In order to understand
> capitalist production in volume I, he deliberately
> and clearly abstracts from the differences among
> heterogeneous use-values, types of labor-power, and
> means of production. He uses the "acid of
> a
