Isn't everything social to begin with, so may be
social represents the category of totality. hence, in
the beginning there was social being and social
consciousness where the former reflects man's material
relation with nature etc.. and the latter how one
expresses those relations. My immediate understanding
of social capital is not business like, ie that the
more people one knows the more social capital one
acquires. my understanding of it is the sum total
society's accumulated wealth (namely commodities) but
also including the social cost of the reproduction of
the labour force, which generally includes the
non-re-numerated domestic economy. Human capital
represents a bastardization of the latter concept in
the sense that it commodifies certain human qualities
that are a product of the re-numerated market and
cheapens the rest of the social cost associated with
the formation of the labour force. i have heard some
argue for a pay rate associated with birthing labour
time, is this not human capital. so to end, everything
is social and so is capital which is in the process of
self differentiation in particular aspects of itself
under capitalism, ie organic constant variable. if one
says otherwise and gave life to things and allowed
things to dictate the development of man then, i do
not want to sound repetitive here, then to use the f
word "fetishism" places primacy on the development of
the means of production outside a specific social
relation. that cannot be .. well certainly in Marxism.
--- Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> CB:Not so much disagreeing with Barkley ( since this
> is a something of a "social "free association
> discussion ), but in Marx's sense, aren't all
> capitals commodities ? Labor power is a commodity.
>
> Investing in labor power by going to college is a
> form of training in Marx's scheme. Trained labor
> adds more value per time to the commodity than
> untrained labor
>
>
> To Mat :
>
> On Jim's comment about Marxian terminology, money
> capital is required to
> purchase labor-power. So that portion of capital is
> variable capital, but labor
> power itself is not capital. Yes?
>
> CB: Labor power is a commodity in Marx's scheme ,
> does that make it conceptually "capitalizable", or a
> necessary factor in the capital relation ?
>
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/13/01 02:33PM >>>
> Actually, one of the conceptual problems with
> social capital as compared with human capital
> is that there is no commodification of it. One can
> borrow money to go to college, thus "investing"
> (in both time and money) in one's human capital
> (potential). And in slavery, there is outright
> human
> capital in the buying and selling of human beings,
> although masters tend to limit their investment in
> the human capital of their slaves for fear that they
> will either escape or revolt.
> But, how does one commidify "trust" or
> "community"?
> Barkley Rosser
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 1:44 PM
> Subject: [PEN-L:8034] Social Capital
>
>
> >
> >
> >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/13/01 01:01PM >>>
> >At 10:20 AM 2/13/01 -0600, you wrote:
> >> have a problem with the term "social capital."
> First, in economics they
> are
> >>already using the term "human capital" for labor
> power, with rational
> >>individuals "investing" to seek maximum return
> over time, etc. Lester
> Thurow
> >>actually pointed out some of the problems with
> this years ago, but in any
> >>case,
> >>now we have "natural capital" being used for
> natural resources by the
> >>ecological
> >>economics crowd, so the earth and nature has to be
> capital now too, so now
> >>we've
> >>gone from "land, labor, and capital" to just three
> kinds of capital "human
> >>capital, natural capital, and...what...capital
> capital, i guess? So
> >>everything
> >>is capital.
> >
> >it's interesting to remember that Marx referred to
> the commodity
> >labor-power as "variable capital," pointing out its
> subordinate character
> >in the process of capitalist accumulation. Perhaps
> we convince those who
> >use the phrase "human capital" to do likewise...
> >
> >((((((((
> >
> >CB: "Capital capital" ,that's a capital idea !
> >
> >Jim's comment is what crossed my mind, though I
> want to identify with Mat's
> frustration.
> >
> >For the alienating , commodity fetishizing
> subjectivity of the capitalist
> the mask Marx wears in _Capital_) , the worker is a
> thing and the commodity
> is alive. Perhaps the terminology "social capital"
> is a modern reflection
> of commodity fetishism.
> >
> >Taking Jim's point a little further, Marx also
> noted that capital is not a
> thing, but a relationship between people regarding
> things, or the like.
> >
> >
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
