Re: [OPE-L] Bloody Capital and Dead Labour Cultural Studies or the Critique of Political Economy? By Mark Neocleous

[Rakesh Bhandari <bhandari@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>  > Again Neocleous' point is that he was the first to underline
> >  that the vampire metaphor is meant to illuminate how
> >  capital is undead to the extent its appropriation of sensuous labor
> >  is successful.
> >  You did not write about Capital as the undead for the reason
> >  Neocleous specifies.!
>
> Rakesh,
>
> No, I don't think I did.


Yes in 1996.


>  You must be confusing what I wrote with
> what Andy B wrote.

Didn't you write about capital as undead as the meaning of the metaphor
and then challenge the idea that labor was also undead? Which is
an appropriation and limitation of Neocleous' metaphor.
At any rate, this is a shift from your prior understanding
 of of why labor is undead.



>  > Again the OPE-L discussion in the Fall of 2005 seems to have
> >  appropriated Neocleous' interpretation without acknowledgement.
>
> Who "appropriated" Neocleous's interpretation?

Who referred to capital as undead? That would be
the answer to your question. I thought it was you.
Are you saying it was Andrew B?

In any case, I think it's important that the source
of ideas is noted on OPE-L; it's a public archive.
Likewise, I do hope that people take permission
from and acknowledge those OPE'Lers whose ideas
they appropriate.

Rakesh



> In solidarity, Jerry