{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02702702702702703, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.522012578616352, '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}}
Abstraction, idealization, and concretization: A discussion of Leszek Nowak’s interpretation of Karl Marx’s method

In this article, an interpretation of Marx’s notions of abstraction and concretization is presented. Unlike Leszek Nowak’s approach, Marx’s use of idealizations is not a reversible process of adding and removing idealizing assumptions. Marx had a richer use of the term abstraction, one in which concretization involves a creative moment of conceptual innovation. Marx adds new variables and new assumptions and elaborates new categories at different levels of abstraction in order to show the unity between appearances and essences. De-idealization, according to Marx, involves both recomposition and de-isolation. Also, concretization, for Marx, does not follow a linear approximation to reality, but rather a hermeneutical circle that is constantly in the process of reframing categories to provide answers to different questions. As a case study, this article shows an interpretation of Marx’s labor theory of value.