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

[Rakesh Bhandari <bhandari@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>  > 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.


But I already quoted him saying above.


> 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.

What has a direct bearing--no, what OPE-L echoed--is Neocleous' interpretation
of the vampire metaphor. This is how I remember it.

I know nothing of vampires (and for me more relevant than images
of the undead are the depictions of mechanized life such as Otto Dix's in
the wake of the Great War) but I was surprised to find this article and
read again what I had skimmed on OPE-L.

I think Chris Arthur closed
the discussion saying something about the absolutely brilliant idea being
vampiric capital as undead for said reason. But this is exactly Neocleous'
idea as I later found out.

How did this come about on OPE-L? I don't know.








>   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.

I did not participate in the vampire exchange. I skimmed it, and then
came across Neocleous' piece in a search of Carl Schmitt whose
work on dictatorship, states of emergency and the crisis of liberalism
are disturbingly relevant in today's US.

I participated in the discussion
of Derrida, and agreed with some of your criticism of me.


Rakesh



> In solidarity, Jerry