Re John H's [6877]:
> I think my answer would be that it is impossible to take "love" into
> economic discourse, precisely because, as Jerry points out, the categories
> of economics ("Marxist" or otherwise) - value, capital, money etc - are
> constructed on the negation of love.
I cam across the following (odd) quote that I think connects with what
you've written about recently but am not clear whether you (or others)
would agree with:
Harry Cleever wrote that:
"Capital is above all objectionable because it is boring".
Even if we grant the idea that "capital is boring" (in the sense that
capital seeks to reproduce boring lives, i.e. that it posits the production
and actualization of surplus value, the accumulation of capital, and the
reproduction of capitalist relations as the sole purpose of life), is _this_
the reason why "capital is above all objectionable"?
It seems to me that as a *political slogan* (which, evidently, at least
one other person -- not Harry -- has turned it into), it misses the mark
and runs the risk of trivializing struggles against capital as struggles
against boredom. As a *conclusion* of a *critique* of capital, is it valid
or is it misleading? What do others think?
In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu May 02 2002 - 00:00:09 EDT