Re: [OPE-L] The HM [Haunted and Mysterious] Conference

[Jerry Levy <Gerald_A_Levy@xxxxxxx>]

> (1) The existence of something utterly non-sensuous, viz. value.
> It is this 'quality' that value literally shares with ghosts (though
> ghosts are fictional which adds plenty more philosophical spice
> to the mix!);

Hi Andy:

In the analogy that we are discussing, vampires (capital) suck value
(blood) out of workers.  As anyone who is familiar with vampire
legends is aware, the blood that is sucked and the sucking itself
has an utterly sensuous quality -- hence the erotic themes in many
modern vampire films and literature.  Blood is certainly not
non-sensuous for vampires!

Consider next the sensuousness of ghosts.  Those who believe in
ghosts will tell you that,  although lacking in a material corpus,
ghosts can be sensed and ghosts themselves have senses (a spirit
which can manifest itself to the living in various forms).

> (2) The active existence of something that 'should' be inherently
> inactive, viz. expended labour as value; it is this that value shares
> with vampires, only more so, since just like vampires, value
> (expended, i.e. dead, labour) feeds on living labour.

Even in pre-capitalist modes of production, means of production
had an "active existence" in the sense that -- together with living
labor -- they could be combined to produce new goods and services.
This is hardly a relation unique to capitalism and value.  Those who
control means of production and labor likewise even in pre-
capitalist modes of production are able to "feed on" living labor,
i.e. use labor to produce a surplus product which makes possible
the continued existence of the ruling class. Again, one sees the
parasitic  trans-historical analogy.

In solidarity, Jerry

PS: Previously I wrote,
> "those who advocate "embodied" and/or "congealed"
> interpretations of value and others who resist those interpretations,
> including value-form theorists."
Andy replied (in part):
> If you have in mind my own rendition of 'congealed' then the above
> statement is incorrect because you can no more lump my view in with
>embodied labour view than with value-form theory.
I reply:  That's why I put 'and/or'.