Christian Marazzi (2008) _Capital and Language: From the New Economy to the War Economy_, trans. Gregory Conti, Los Angeles: Semiotext(e). 

In _Capital and Language_ (first written in 2002), Christian Marazzi claims that the capitalist economy can be understood in terms of language; on account that finance is understood through linguistic conventions and also that new forms of labour are produced through language and are analogous to speech acts. As has been established elsewhere, work in the social factory  is increasingly characterized by its linguistic characteristics. General intellect, for Marazzi, lies in the networks of machines but also in linguistic communication and social cooperation. So too with the world of finance that takes on a controlling function in relation to labour and social relations but at the same time reveals the potential for autonomy from it. The recognition of the reliance of financial markets on collective speech acts (or communicative action) indicates the potential of freedom from its contraints.  
'The theoretical analysis of financial market operations reveals the centrality of communication, of _language_, not only as a vehicle for transmitting data but also as a _creative force_.' (Marazzi 2008: 27)

The importance of language is revealed in the following passage:
'Our body is born "in" language, "in" relation, in that linguistic relation in which the prime symbolic level is given as the _union_ of life and language.' (Marazzi 2008: 32) 

Marazzi also cites Austin's _How to do things with Words_ to cast finical conventions in similar terms of performative utterances - describing and producing something at the same time - indeed quoting Virno 'He does not speak about what he is doing, but he does something by speaking' (2008: 33). When it comes to digital work, Franco Berardi talks of the changed relationship between conception and execution in this respect, in that the work is conceptual and is then enacted materially by the instructions that are produced by a machine (in Marazzi 2008: 40). Marazzi also cites John Searle who makes the link to finance, with reference to printed currency that is not simply a description of a fact but creates one. 'A performative utterance is one in which saying something makes that something true. (2008: 34) 

The 'fact-that-one-speaks', produces the fact merely by the fact that it has been said. Marazzi further explores the self-reflectivity of the performative, to explain the crisis of the financial markets. For he claims that whereas the self-referentiality of financial markets speak but presuppose the negation of the body of the speakers, the self-referentiality of the 'absolute performative' presupposes the body of the speaker (2008: 35; absolute performative is Virno's phrase). 

Speaking in this sense gives rise to the multitude (the collective body), a plurality of different voices that demonstrate transformative potential. Again Marazzi cites Virno:
'Biopolitics exists where the foremost priority, in immediate experience, is given to what belongs to the potential dimension of human existence: not the spoken word but of the faculty to speak; not work actually done but the generic capacity to produce.' (in Marazzi 2008: 156)