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

[Jerry Levy <Gerald_A_Levy@xxxxxxx>]

> The point remains that Neocleous emphasizes (and insists)
> that he has clarified the meaning of the vampire
> metaphor--that capital is undead as it appropriates
> the sensuous energy of living labor.

Rakesh,

I  don't see where he "emphasizes" and "insists" on that role.
I couldn't find such a claim in "Bloody Capital and Dead Labour"
or anything he wrote for the promotional material for his book
or in the abstract of his _HPT_ article. What I did read  in  "Bloody
Capital and Dead Labour" is his explanation that  there is a long history
and extensive literature of  viewing the "vampire as capital" and
"capital as vampire"  in cultural studies literature.  (Not all of the
sources could be viewed since the working paper published on the
Net didn't include the notes at the end of the paper.) This was important
from the point of view of his article since the main thrust of it concerns
the differing ways in which blood and capital are analyzed in different
traditions of cultural studies vs. a critique of political economy.  As
interesting a topic as it may be, it has little direct bearing on the
discussion we had in October, 2005.   If there was to be a
connection then it should have been raised in the discussion on
Derrida's Specters since that's the closest we might have come to
discussing cultural studies and postmodernist literature on ghosts,
specters, and vampires.  Since you a professional in the field of cultural
studies and rhetoric, if there was anyone on the list who should have
known about Neocleous's works it should have been you.

In solidarity, Jerry