Let me hasten to say that I agree with you. I got a bit caught up in trying to think
out the terminological puzzle you posed, but I think maybe your main point was the
issue of the confusion that specifically "social capital" as a term and concept poses
for cogent analysis of capital.
I think that Marx ( and Marxists) might want to give the negative connotation that you
are commenting on to the relationship among the wage-laborer, her labor power and the
capitalist, so the reference to labor power as capital, _once it gets bought by the
capitalist_, fits.
I forgot to say it this way: labor power is not capital while still owned by the
wage-laborer. Labor power is not capital for the wage-laborer. It is only capital for
the capitalist.
Charles
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/14/01 01:15PM >>>
This is part of the reason why I think *more* uses, and especially more sloppy
uses (e.g. "social capital"), of the word capital is not what we need. It is
already tough enough, with finance capital vs. industrial capital, and capital
goods vs. money captial. These two pairs are not the same thing. Because we can
have money capital that is industrial capital, right? It is capital in its
money form in the circuit of capital, but that is in the sphere of industry, not
in financial markets or whatever. Obviously labor-power is not capital goods,
that we can be sure of. Labor-power isn't money capital, either. Now money
capital gives an industrial capitalist the power to purchase the commodity
labor-power, but does that make labor-power itself capital?
((((((((((
CB: I think it is once the capitalist buys it from the wage-laborer. It gets used
immediately by the capitalist, and it expresses itself as labor. That labor is
embodied in the commodity, and the capitalist, not the wage-laborer owns the
commodity. The end product commodity is the form that capital takes at that point.
((((((((
Labor-power is a
commodity, sold by laborers, bought by capitalists. Hmmm. I think I understand
what ome are saying but I'll need to think about it.
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 11:13 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:8084] Social Capital
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/13/01 03:57PM >>>
labor power is a commodity. that is different than labor power being capital. a
commodity is anything bought and sold in a market. the money used to purchase
labor power is part of the total capital. but labor power is not capital. right?
(((((((((
CB: Going back to this earlier question from Mat, in Marx's paradigm, labor
power is not capital for the wage-laborer while she owns it , but when she sells
that labor power to the capitalist, it becomes part of the capital of the
capitalist.
Capital is a form of private property. Property is not a thing, it is a
relationship between people regarding things. The relationship between the
wage-laborer and capitalist within capitalist property is that the wage-laborer
sells her labor power to the capitalist, who then owns it, which is to say has a
relationship of control over the labor power even prior to the wage-laborer
herself ! The capitalist has the same relatioinship of dominance of the
direction and kind of labor to which the labor power is put as the capitalist
has over the other elements in the production process , the instruments and
means of production. The labor power becomes the capitalist's property, private
property.
