I'm not sure that "free to do 'cultural play'" quite captures the compulsive nature of the personifications Marx was criticizing. "It is an enchanted, perverted, topsy-turvy world, in which Monsieur le Capital and Madame la Terre do their ghost-walking as social characters and at the same time directly as mere things."
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 11:08 AM, c b <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Tom Walker > > > Marx's analysis, while insightful, is *from the perspective of capital: > "*The > persons exist for one another merely as representations of, and therefore, > as owners of, commodities. In the course of our investigation, we shall > find, in general, that the characters who appear on the economic stage are > but the personifications of the economic relations that exist between > them." When Marx talks about "value" (i.e., exchange value) he is not > talking about something universal and transcendent, he is talking > about a *theatrical > performance*. > > ^^^^^ > CB; True, however one of the main things Marx demonstrates is there is > no such thing as "universal and transcendent value" . Capitalism is a > historically specific mode of production with a historically specific > mode of value. It is the bourgeoisie who falsely claim that their form > of value is universal and transcendent, and one of his main projects > is to refute them on this. > > As to "theatrical performance" that is the kernel of truth in > so-called post-modernist critique. All human societies and cultures > have a performative aspect to life activities. As long as basic > biological and physiological needs and functions are met by the mode > of production, distribution and reproduction, humans are free to do > 'cultural play' > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Cheers, Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
