I cannot help but see debates about origins as theological. In religious studies we see two kinds of origin myth – in the Bible there is a God (well ‘the’ god) who intervenes upon the primordial swirl to separate out day from night, land from sea etc., then makes life and says that it is good. According to some anthropology I read way back when, in some parts of Papua New Guinea the ‘god’ is a crocodile who arrives the with intent to eat men, and in thrashing about by their land, turns the area into swamps and marsh and rivers and land all mixed together. To the extent that men can kill crocodiles they might stop this thrashing about and so create dry land on which to live. See Gregory Bateson The Naven on this.
There is a debate over sovereign power versus the power of security – I read this as related to the theological approaches mentioned above. Agamben as monotheist, Foucault as pagan would not even do it justice as of course the thing is more complicated..
What does this mean for reading capital and the suggestion I made two years ago that sometime we might start reading Capital from section 8, so-called Originary Accumulation, before reading the rest? Reminding ourselves that the process of valourisation is ongoing [that ‘so-called’ is key].
It is not quite so simple as offering up some version of theological teleology in Marx as having an origin story in accumulation – the accumulation is not only at the ‘start’ just as I do not think his argument so easily fits a binary code of separating capitalists and labour in some co-constituting or contradictory embrace. It is also the case that the flux orientation of multivariant power is not simply randomisation interrupted by strategies of security – there is however agency of the class plausible here too, even as that is more evident against the hegemonic sovereign. Ahh mythology – and different versionings of the origin story, each obscure this possibility or intervening to make things really new. Thus ideology obfuscates.