I think some of the confusion in this thread relates to the fact that
'capital' has two meanings in the economics context.  One meaning of
capital is 'stored up dead labour utilized to enhance the productivity
of living labour'; the second, 'a social relation'. Human capital in the
form of education conforms to the first meaning but, obviously, has a
very different social relation than physical capital owned by the
capitalist.  As a university professor, I am still 'wage labour' and
still a member of the working class (and there is no sense in making the
destinction between blue and white collar here), but I receive at least
part of my increased productivity from my 'investment' in education in
the form of higher wages.  If the employer can appropriate or
expropriate that investment (by taping my lectures, printing my
textbooks and teaching materials without paying a royalty, forcing me to
put my course on the internet or on disc, etc.) then I may not receive
any return to my investment and my wages will tend to fall to those of
basic labour. Normally,  the capital investment can't be expropriated
from the worker and thus the social relationship between capital
(investment in education/training) and labour is markedly different than
it is between physical capital and labour. Likewise for the distribution
of the increased productivity of labour.

Paul P


Devine, James wrote:


recently, the NY TIMES had an article about how much "organizational capital" (the "social 
capital" inside the organization a.k.a. "corporate culture") could be recorded in PCs and thus used 
and remembered more easily. This, they said, was how the PC helped productivity.
Jim D.



Reply via email to