From: Jerry Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Mon Apr 24 2006 - 22:46:10 EDT
Re: [OPE-L] Bloody Capital and Dead Labour Cultural StudieAnother thought occurred to me upon further reflection (it's hard trying to reconstruct your intentions from a post written 10 years ago!) : I was replying to a question from (former member) Massimo de Angelis. Massimo, you might recall, was influenced in his interpretations of _Capital_ by Harry Cleaver's _Reading Capital Politically_. By answering Massimo in the way that I did -- by highlighting undead _labor_ -- I was perhaps being a tad mischievous since I wanted to suggest that the vampire metaphor which he himself in effect raised for discussion is not consistent with Harry's interpretation. I couldn't locate a response from Massimo and I'm not sure if he sent one. What I would have liked, I think, was an exchange between Harry's and Massimo's interpretation of _Capital_ vs. Mike L's (and that's one reason when I then initiated a thread on subjectivity). [This relates to a discussion we had in Fall, 1995 on Book III (Wage-Labour) in the 6-book-plan -- a subject that I tried to re-raise for discussion at various times in various ways in the years since.] In solidarity, Jerry Sat, 4 May 1996 04:56:48 -0700 Massimo asked in [OPE-L:2072]: > "A great deal of capital, which appears today in the United States > without any birth-certificate, was yesterday, in England, > the capitalised blood of children." (V.I. p. 921) > I guess also the quote could be dismissed on the ground that > it represents a simple metaphor, in which case I would like > ask: a metaphor for what? May I have your > distinguished views on the matter It's a vampire metaphor, of course. Taking the metaphor literally, one could refer to labor as "undead labor" -- neither completely living or truly dead.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 30 2006 - 00:00:07 EDT