> These guys see Marx as economistic, and productivist
> and industrialistic. There are so many things wrong here, but they are
> fairly subtle. Capital is not a social relation, it is a material-semiotic
> relation.
I imagine there are many readings of Marx; for me, the notion that capital is a social relation is one of the lynchpins of ol' whiskers' critique of capitalism. Perhaps I misunderstand your terms. In what sense is a "material-semiotic relation" not a social relation? (How can you have semiotics without social relations?)
Miles