Speaking of the evolution of terms, the word
capital itself originally meant a head of cattle in Latin.
A pecus was just one cow, from which we get the
word pecuniary, also Latin. I understand that the word
fee is from faihu, Old German for a head of cattle.
Barkley Rosser
-----Original Message-----
From: Forstater, Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 5:31 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:8111] RE: Re: RE: Social Capital
>It reminds me of the evolution of the word "rent" in the 'discipline'. Now
>everything is "capital", and everyone gets ('seeks') "rents".
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 4:07 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [PEN-L:8110] Re: RE: Social Capital
>
>
> Of course there is yet another annoying idea
>floating around that indeed all factors of production
>are just sub-species of capital, at least those that
>are not just immediately used up in production.
>The point is that their future returns can be capitalized
>into a present value, even if like labor in a non-slave
>society, they cannot be bought and sold as an asset.
>This would certainly apply to land.
> However, if somebody asks me for a source
>where I have seen this stated, I am afraid I don't remember.
>Barkley Rosser
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Forstater, Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 4:26 PM
>Subject: [PEN-L:8105] RE: Social Capital
>
>
>>Let me see if I can think this through. (Maggie, it is just like Ross
>Thomson's
>>class our first semester at the New School. Tell me if I have remembered
>right).
>>
>>Let's think about the circuits of capital. M-C-M' can be broken down to
>be:
>>
>> -LP
>>M - C -MP (machines, tools,...P...C' - M'
>> natural resources)
>>
>>where M' = M + deltaM and M' > M (assuming realization at a profit)
>>
>>and C' > C that is, the value of the commodities produced is greater than
>the
>>value of the commodities purchased with the money capital initially.
>>
>>( M = money capital; C = commodities; LP is labor power; MP = means of
>>production; P is the production process)
>>
>>C is capital-value in the commodity form. P is the production process,
but
>the
>>combination of labor power and means of production in the production
>process is
>>also called the productive form of capital, or P. Also, C is made up of
>constant
>>capital and variable capital, the former which is means of production, the
>>latter which is labor power. Consumption of the constant and variable
>capital
>>results in the expanded value through its combination in the production
>process.
>>The new or surplus-value (s-v) is the difference between the value of the
>>commodity labor power and the value produced by that labor power; labor
>power
>>produces a value greater than its own value (which is equal to the value
of
>the
>>means of subsistence). The circuit therefore requires a specific social
>form of
>>production, in which some, capitalists, own the means of production, and
>others,
>>workers, possess only their own labor power. Thus workers are compelled to
>sell
>>their labor power to capitalists ("double freedom" requirement). This
>specific
>>social relation (capitalist: worker) is a pre-condition of the capital
>circuit,
>>and is itself reproduced by the process of the circuit.
>>
>>Now all this would seem to suggest that labor power is capital, it is a
>>form--one of the forms--that capital takes, when it is in its commodity
>form, C,
>>and its productive form, P. In addition, it is variable capital,
therefore
>>capable of self-expansion.
>>
>>But I think there are still some problems to be worked out here. My
>hesitation
>>about calling labor power "capital" is I think rooted in two broad areas
of
>>concern. One is the distinctiveness of labor power as a commodity. The
>other is
>>the distinctiveness of "capital goods," especially 'machine tools.' This
>would
>>take a long time to go into detail. Maybe I can summarize it later if
>anyone's
>>interested.
>>
>>But when I start to think about this, what becomes pretty clear is that
the
>idea
>>of 'social capital' would have been ripped to absolute shreds by Marx.
>Imagine
>>the venom he would spew, based on our familiarity with the way he dealt
>with
>>things like Senior's Last Hour and Malthus's population theory, etc. The
>other
>>thing that comes to mind is that if they ever let me teach micro again (I
>was
>>absolutely not allowed to teach micro at Gettysburg in no uncertain terms!
>They
>>did let me teach it at Bard. I haven't here at UMKC yet), this is what I
am
>>going to teach. What's the best thing to use, still Sweezy's Theory of
>>Capitalist Development, or the old basic guides to Marx by Foley (too
>advanced),
>>B. Fine, L. Harris, Mandel? Then use some of the Hartman and Folbre
>materials
>>that brings in patriarchy into it?
>>
>>Mat
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Charles Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 12:46 PM
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: [PEN-L:8089] Social Capital
>>
>>
>>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.
>>
>>
>
>
