While Foucault was, I think, correct in leaving out finance capital at the level of practice, I believe it was an error in terms of discourse. To use the figure of the entrepreneur in a highly technological and developed age is not to evoke the figure, to put it in the most general and simplistic terms, of someone who goes to a factory and checks in on their investment from time to time. The entrepreneur, before even the notion of finance capital comes into view for us, is someone already deeply divorced from the production process and our general way of thinking about it. To introduce the pervasive, however misapprehended, understanding of finance capital that is common today is to say simply that the entrepreneur of himself, on the neo-liberal account, is someone who imagines that they make their human capital work for them. What I mean by this is that once people begin to think that investment is a process whereby money is grown by virtue of its participation in the market, subjects will understand themselves, by way of the neo-liberal concept of human capital, quite differently….

GET THIS JOB DONE [ORDER NOW]