From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Mon Apr 24 2006 - 20:06:15 EDT
Jerry, While Neocleous argued in the History of Political Thought (2003--I sent you the cite offlist) that capital is vampiric because though dead it comes to life exactly through the appropriation of the sensuous life of labor--capital thus be-com-ing the undead--you said that the vampire metaphor suggests that labor itself should be referred to as undead labor. I don't quite follow your reasoning. It seems that you are both handling the metaphor quite differently. At any rate, has anyone read Neocleous' book on the monstrous in Marx and Burke? Rakesh glevy@acnet.pratt.edu (glevy@acnet.pratt.edu) 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. In OPE-L Solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 30 2006 - 00:00:07 EDT