Second Nature and the Organic Composition of Capital?

Dumb question–has anyone written anything aligning what Hegelian-Marxists interpret as Marx’s theory of second nature/natural history in relation to his theory of the organic composition of capital? If not such a comparison would show how and why Marx articulates the constitution of capital as a second nature. Rather than some mysterious type of abstract externality that hovers above us in some way, it would point out that Marx links the autonomous function of these abstractions to valorization and real subsumption. Demonstrating this might also provide a means of aligning Western Marxism with the dynamic of capital.

Advertisements

About HR

Deep in the adjunct crackhole.
This entry was posted in political marxism trifecta, Value and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s