>Damned if they do - everyone else is already saying this, so why does it
>need to be said - damned if they don't - no one else is saying this, so it
>obviously isn't important.
Please. When I asked "this is news" I was referring to you're saying that accumulation
>cannot be explained by any one
> >set of institutions that can be described as the 'economy,' but instead
> >depend on a vast, diverse array of social relations that transcend any
> >analytical division between 'economy' and 'politics.'
Then you asked who else is writing about the "differential conception of accumulation" and I said no one I can think of.
Like Mike said yesterday, you should expect this kind of reaction when you announce you've come up with a new school. And that's the way it's being touted. Like this quote:
Capital as Power Toward a New Cosmology of Capitalism
by Shimshon Bichler and Jonathan Nitzan / May 6th, 2010
[...]
"As younger researchers socialized in a different world, we didn't carry the same theoretical baggage. Uninhibited, we applied the Cartesian Ctrl-Alt-Del and started by assuming that there is no bifurcation to begin with and therefore no real-financial interaction to explain. All capital is finance and only finance, and it exists as finance because accumulation represents not the material amalgamation of utility or labor, but the creordering of power."
[...]
Bleah