From: glevy@PRATT.EDU
Date: Wed Oct 26 2005 - 16:12:57 EDT
> I don't know what created to you so many problems > in the title of my paper. I think it is a good > piece of scholarship <snip, JL> Hi Riccardo: I'm sure it _is_ a good piece of scholarship. The problem wasn't with the title of the paper _per se_. The problem that I had was your claim about _how literally_ this metaphor and analogy should be interpreted. Recall earlier discussions this month on the list about (what I view as) the metaphors of embodiment, crystallization, and congealment. What I wanted to show in this thread are the dangers of taking the ghostly and vampire-like analogies _too_ literally. You might recall that this is not the first time on this list when the question of metaphors, literary allusions, and analogies in _Capital_ and other writings on political economy by Marx have come up for discussion: it represents a tension between those who advocate "embodied" and/or "congealed" interpretations of value and others who resist those interpretations, including value-form theorists. > <snip, JL> ... As for Marx, I think my reference to > vampres should be read in the context of my paper. Fair enough. > You are right: I saw gothic films, but I am not a > fan of horror stories, so my culture here is > lacking. Though I liked very much "They live", by > John Carpenter, 1988, which is quite up to the > point here, though not a gothic horror stories, > don't you think? I also very much enjoyed "They Live" (despite an overly long gratutitous fight scene and a cheesy ending) but I think it is a work of science fiction and a political satire, not a horror film. Other science fiction films worth remembering in the context of the ghoulish nature of capital are "Solyent Green" with Charlton Heston and E.G. Robinson (a futuristic plot where the main food conglomerate sells recycled human meat for human consumption) and "Coma" (where the body parts of people who are in a coma are harvested and sold by a private firm to the highest bidder). > But my use of the vampire analogy is going > exactly in the opposite direction of Ian. Marx's > vampires are very active, they are parasites but > the reality we are talking about does not exist > without this activity. Here we have one of the > most distinctive differences between capital and > other modes of production. Well ... I think that Ian makes a valid point when he claims that the purpose of the analogy was to suggest a parasitic relationship. This was an important point for Marx to make _politically_: i.e. if capitalists are parasites then it points the way towards _workers' control and ownership_ as a feasible alternative to capital. Replying to Andy B: *Even if* capital is "undead", workers are not like those who have been bitten by vampires. Don't you see why? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Oct 27 2005 - 00:00:03 EDT