{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03749669923422234, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010034327964087668, 'mean_word_length': 4.827692307692308, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A comment on Bonefeld’s ‘Abstract labour: Against its nature and on its time’

In a recent article in this journal, Werner Bonefeld (2010) raises some criticisms of my position on abstract labour (Carchedi, 2009). Bonefeld quotes Rubin to the effect that, 'it is not possible to reconcile a physiological concept of abstract labour with the historical character of the value which it creates' (Bonefeld, 2010: 258). Bonefeld agrees, and finds an ambiguity in Marx because Marx supposedly holds both a physiological and a social/historical notion of abstract labour. Clearly, the supposed ambiguity arises because one clings for some reason to the notion that abstract labour must be either one thing or another, and cannot be both at the same time. However, as I submit, for Marx, 'value is the specific social dimension of a material reality. It is neither only physical nor only social, it is both' (Carchedi, 2009:154). Notice that even if this notion were not Marx's own, it is one that fits perfectly well into his theory, and does away with the ambiguity Bonefeld claims to have found in Marx. Is this notion a Ricardian one? Bonefeld seems to think so (Bonefeld, 2010:274 18ff.). But then he should indicate where in Ricardo's work a notion of abstract labour as both material and historical (class-determined) can be found. As long as no theoretical proof or textual evidence is provided, the charge of Ricardianism can be easily dismissed. But this aside, the denial of materiality to abstract labour before exchange is absurd, given that any labour (including mental labour) is an expenditure of human energy, and given that any expenditure of human energy is material. If it is material, it is quantifiable, as my example of human metabolism indicates. And there is no question that labour, abstract and material, is also socially or class determined (has a social dimension) already in the process of production. Bonefeld's critique is based on a misrepresentation of my position. First of all, mine is not a 'physiological definition of abstract labour' (Bonefeld, 2010: 274). It is evident that for me (following Marx), abstract labour is both physiological and social, with a class content (see below). Second, I do not submit that 'calories are the measure of value' (ibid.). I have been at pains to stress that the example of calories is just that--an example meant to show that abstract labour is both material and measurable, as it is evident if one chooses, for example, calories as a unit of measurement. Concerning the physiological aspect, as I state, what is needed is the proof that abstract labour is an observable expenditure of physiological and undifferentiated human energy. The following proof cannot be explicitly found in Marx ... However, it is inherent in and consistent with his work. The process essential for our purposes is the human metabolism. The analysis of the human metabolism shows that people, irrespective of their differences, produce the same undifferentiated type of energy and thus consume the same undifferentiated type of energy, no matter which specific activities they engage into. This is consonant with Marx's 'physiological, 'material' expenditure of undifferentiated human energy. As Marx says: 'all labour is an expenditure of human labour-power, in the physiological sense, and it is in this quality of being equal, or abstract, human labour that it forms the value of commodities'. Abstract labour is a 'purely abstract activity, a purely mechanical activity ... a merely formal activity, or, what is the same, a merely material [stofflich] activity, activity pure and simple. This is exactly what human metabolism is. The observation of the expenditure of calories during production is the observation of abstract labour. …