i don't quite understand it. i believe i understand it in some sense dialectically - as philosophy, and practice.

but - ignoring the dire and utterly out of date cries of falsifcationism, i am very perplexed as to WHY his argument works. it seems to follow [the argument not the crisis[ almost trivially from the analysis of commodities, but then shouldn't we be pulling the commodity form apart in out thinking? at least if we're going to understand practice.

hey so - i should add that shamefully i only do vounteer work at present. and - my last place of work has been all but destroyed in the time i worked there.

salutations, as ever - :) !

lem.