i hope everyone understood, as I thought it would be obvious from my other
comments, that I was not proposing that Marx was using the term in the same way,
it was just further evidence supporting my own objection to the term "social
capital" as it is used by the "lonely bowler" school.
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 1:50 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:8294] social capital
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/16/01 05:36PM >>>
At 03:12 PM 2/16/01 -0500, you wrote:
> I thank Mat for noting Marx's use of the
>term "social capital" in Volume II of Capital.
>Of course, this was one of the volumes not
>published in his lifetime, much less translated
>into English by him, in contrast with Volume I.
>Thus, presumably the term that is used is
>actually "sozialkapital."
> Anybody out there able to verify this?
>Also, anybody know when it was first translated into
>English and by whom?
>Barkley Rosser
I'm pretty sure that Marx used the phrase "social capital" in volumes I and
III, too. It simply refers to the capitalist class as a whole. It has
nothing to do with recent ideas of "social capital" as some sort of public
asset held by "civil society."
(((((((((((
CB: Makes sense since "capital" is very essentially private property, not
social or public property, the main contradiction of capitalism being private
appropriation and social production.
