IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/ijplur/v4y2013i3p296-309.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The economy of death: production, reproduction, and the matter of ontological difference

Author

Listed:
  • Anne F. Pomeroy

Abstract

Karl Marx held to a view of ontological difference. Prominent in the early writings, yet re-emerging at crucial junctures in his seminal work Capital, this ontological view is expressed primarily as a distinction between human being, animal being, and the being of objects (things). The difficulty with this view is that, if taken to articulate distinctions in kind, it may not adequately explain how it is that the activity of production on the part of human beings can simultaneously amount to a self-reproduction of the person as thing. Are we to understand reification as merely analogical or is it possible to understand Marx more literally? We will explore the latter possibility, suggesting that the ontological distinctions can be taken as distinctions of degree and not distinctions of kind, thereby demonstrating the way in which the capitalist labour market and sphere of production generate real ontological degradation - a transformation by degrees of human to animal and material being. Based upon this analysis, it becomes possible to speak of the capitalist economy as an 'economy of death' - as producing a world of increasing ontological stagnation.

Suggested Citation

  • Anne F. Pomeroy, 2013. "The economy of death: production, reproduction, and the matter of ontological difference," International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 4(3), pages 296-309.
  • Handle: RePEc:ids:ijplur:v:4:y:2013:i:3:p:296-309
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=58265
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ids:ijplur:v:4:y:2013:i:3:p:296-309. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sarah Parker (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=319 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.