EXCERPT There are errant forces in the signs of capital. Not in its margins as its marginals, but dissimulated in its most ‘nuclear’, its most essential exchanges, the most ‘alienated’ or ‘fetishised’ exchanges in Baudrillard’s eyes. If we do not recognise this, then in ten years time we will start up another new critique, the critique of the ‘critique of the political economy of the sign’. But it is extraordinarily difficult to recognise the desire of capital such as it is instantiated here and there; as, for example in labour, in the awful mundane sense of the grind for which not even the worker today has enough words of contempt and disrepute; or as in the object, the same object whose force Baudrillard’s fascination has for its part, justifiably, so helped us to recapture through its power: isn’t fetishism an opportunity for intensities? Doesn’t it attest to an admirable force of invention, adding events which could not be more improbable to the libidinal band? From where would you criticise fetishism, when you know that one cannot criticise homosexuality or masochism without becoming a crude bastard of the moral order?…