Talk:Abstract labour and concrete labour

Socialism Mid‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Changed intro and image placement[edit]

FYI

– Section heading added by Undead Shambles (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction was too long so I put everything except for the first sentence into the first section called "Origin". I've also moved the picture from the upper right to the left of the first section. I'm not happy with that place, but it seems to be the least worse.--Tomvasseur (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tidy up[edit]

FYI

– Section heading added by Undead Shambles (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have tidied up the notes and references in the text that I wrote.Jurriaan (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A concern[edit]

Jurriaan, why have you repeatedly added this? It is absurd and obviously false. To the extent that the cited source actually says so, we shall have to stop relying that source in other articles. bobrayner (talk) 12:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Rayner, why do you keep deleting text, and vandalizing this article, without explanation or reference to any sources? I will combat your criminal, corrupt activity as much as I can. Obviously I have not placed articles here free of charge only to see them ruined by incompetents. Jurriaan (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have repeatedly added this:

In official economics, workers do not exist anymore; they are just an abstract "factor of production" or a "labour input" or a "consumer".

This is wrong. It is not true. This absurd pseudoeconomic rant has no place in a wikipedia article. I recognise that you are angry, but my ability to distinguish reality from fantasy, and distinguish reliable economic sources from Counterpunch, does not make me criminal and corrupt. The problem lies elsewhere. First, could you stop the personal attacks? Then perhaps we could look into what reliable sources say. bobrayner (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"This is wrong". WHY is it wrong??? Because Bob Rayner says so! That is not good enough. Find me one standard economic textbook which discusses workers in any way other than as a factor of production, a consumer or a labour input, please!212.64.48.162 (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand that you're contradicting yourself? You insist that the article must say "In official economics, workers do not exist anymore" but here you seem to concede that economics considers workers in various ways. I just reached for this textbook off my bookshelf, and it mentions workers over and over again in different contexts. As would most economics textbooks. bobrayner (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly true that Karl Case, rather unusually, mentions workers in his texts. But he discusses them only as a factor of production, a consumer or a labour input. (I am basing myself on the recent editions of his books). Workers as human beings or creators of wealth for entrepreneurs are not in evidence.Jurriaan (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

I would appreciate it if Bob Rayner would refrain from chopping chunks out of the article without explanation, by "royal decree" as it were, since in that case I have to reinsert all the bits again and reference them separately when I develop the article further.Jurriaan (talk) 11:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Abstract labour and concrete labour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]