a recent posting purported to introduce us to "social capital", which seems to suggest that capitalism can be separated from its exploitative nature. capital is NOT something which remains unused in production as someone would have us believe, but a form of production, and not the only possible one at that. capital is ACCUMMULATED, as the title of Luxemburgs book makes clear.
nothing is further from the truth. it is the process of capital;isation that ultimately produces the effects of capitalism, which of course we can see in various aspects on most of the news items featuring on IMC.
it may seem a little arcane to copy out chunks of Marx at the present time, but while of course events are in full flow, analysis must still occupy an important place; we have to know what capitalism is before we can respond to it. here at any rate is a selection from Marx's "Theories of Surplus Value". fans of the earlier "philosophical" Marx will note how the following, far from being dull economics, is imbued with the notion that perception generally lags behind reality
XXI- 1317 Productivity of capital as the capitalist expression of the power of social labour
we have seen not only how capital produces, but how it is itself produced, and how, as an essentially altered relation, it emerges from the process of production and how it is developed in it. on the one hand capital transforms the mode of production; on the other hand this changed form of the mode of production and a particular stage in thge development in the development of the material forces of production are the basis and precondition- the premise for its own formation.
since living labour- through the exchange between capital and labourer- is encorporated in capital, and appears as an activity belonging to capital from the moment that the labour- process begins, all the productive powers of social labour appear as the productive powers of capital, just as the general social form of labour appears in money as the property of a thing.thus the productive power of social labour and its special forms now appear as productive powers and forms of capital, of MATERIALISED labour, of the material conditions of labour- which having assumed this independent form, are personified by the capitalist in relation to living labour. here we have once more the perversion of the relationship, which we have already, in dealing with money, called FETISHISM. [oo-er. i blame the public schools myself!]
the capitalist himself only holds power as the personification of capital... the PRODUCTIVITY of capital consists in the first instance- even if one only considers the FORMAL subsumption of labour under capital- in the COMPULSION TO PERFORM SURPLUS- LABOUR, labour beyond the immediate need; a compulsion which the capitalist mode of production shares with previous modes, but which it exercises and carries into effect in a manner more favourable to production...
the relation grows still more complicated and apparently still more mysterios because, with the development of the specifically capitalist mode of production, it is not only these directly material things that get up to the labourer and confront him as "capital", but also the forms of socially developed labour- co-operation, manufacture (as a form of division of labour), the factory, (as a form of social labour organised on machinery as its material base) - all these appear as the FORMS OF DEVELOMENT OF CAPITAL...
Capital itself has a double character, since it consists of commodities:
1 Exchange value (money)
2 use value; and here it shows itself through its specific relations in the labour process...
thus capital becomes a very mysterious being.
The question arises, how or for what reason does labour as opposed to capital appear productive or as PRODUCTIVE LABOUR. since the productive power of labour are transposed into capital, and the same productive power cannot be counted twice, once as the productive power of labour and the second time as the productive power of capital ?
it may seem a little arcane to copy out chunks of Marx at the present time, but while of course events are in full flow, analysis must still occupy an important place; we have to know what capitalism is before we can respond to it. here at any rate is a selection from Marx's "Theories of Surplus Value". fans of the earlier "philosophical" Marx will note how the following, far from being dull economics, is imbued with the notion that perception generally lags behind reality
XXI- 1317 Productivity of capital as the capitalist expression of the power of social labour
we have seen not only how capital produces, but how it is itself produced, and how, as an essentially altered relation, it emerges from the process of production and how it is developed in it. on the one hand capital transforms the mode of production; on the other hand this changed form of the mode of production and a particular stage in thge development in the development of the material forces of production are the basis and precondition- the premise for its own formation.
since living labour- through the exchange between capital and labourer- is encorporated in capital, and appears as an activity belonging to capital from the moment that the labour- process begins, all the productive powers of social labour appear as the productive powers of capital, just as the general social form of labour appears in money as the property of a thing.thus the productive power of social labour and its special forms now appear as productive powers and forms of capital, of MATERIALISED labour, of the material conditions of labour- which having assumed this independent form, are personified by the capitalist in relation to living labour. here we have once more the perversion of the relationship, which we have already, in dealing with money, called FETISHISM. [oo-er. i blame the public schools myself!]
the capitalist himself only holds power as the personification of capital... the PRODUCTIVITY of capital consists in the first instance- even if one only considers the FORMAL subsumption of labour under capital- in the COMPULSION TO PERFORM SURPLUS- LABOUR, labour beyond the immediate need; a compulsion which the capitalist mode of production shares with previous modes, but which it exercises and carries into effect in a manner more favourable to production...
the relation grows still more complicated and apparently still more mysterios because, with the development of the specifically capitalist mode of production, it is not only these directly material things that get up to the labourer and confront him as "capital", but also the forms of socially developed labour- co-operation, manufacture (as a form of division of labour), the factory, (as a form of social labour organised on machinery as its material base) - all these appear as the FORMS OF DEVELOMENT OF CAPITAL...
Capital itself has a double character, since it consists of commodities:
1 Exchange value (money)
2 use value; and here it shows itself through its specific relations in the labour process...
thus capital becomes a very mysterious being.
The question arises, how or for what reason does labour as opposed to capital appear productive or as PRODUCTIVE LABOUR. since the productive power of labour are transposed into capital, and the same productive power cannot be counted twice, once as the productive power of labour and the second time as the productive power of capital ?
Comments
Hide the following 11 comments
what is capital
13.04.2004 16:42
Answer:
A town or city that is the official seat of government in a political entity, such as a state or nation.
A city that is the center of a specific activity or industry: the financial capital of the world.
Wealth in the form of money or property, used or accumulated in a business by a person, partnership, or corporation.
Material wealth used or available for use in the production of more wealth.
Human resources considered in terms of their contributions to an economy: “ [The] swift unveiling of his... plans provoked a flight of human capital” (George F. Will).
Accounting. The remaining assets of a business after all liabilities have been deducted; net worth.
Capital stock.
Capitalists considered as a group or class.
An asset or advantage: “profited from political capital accumulated by others” (Michael Mandelbaum).
A capital letter.
adj.
First and foremost; principal: a decision of capital importance.
First-rate; excellent: a capital idea.
Relating to or being a seat of government.
Extremely serious: a capital blunder.
Involving death or calling for the death penalty: a capital offense.
Of or relating to financial assets, especially being or related to those financial assets that add to the net worth of a business: made capital improvements at the plant site.
Relating to or being a capital letter.
SATISFIED?
not a social scientist
The irritating return of mr economista
13.04.2004 18:51
I'm re-reading Marx at the moment, so maybe i'll answer my own question. I posted a question on the end of the other thread regarding the 'Ithaca Hours' complimentary currency scheme that aims to generate social capital. A by-product of the scheme was to produce a climate of mutual aid amongst members as they discovered they had skills which were of mutual use and exchanged them WITHOUT ithaca hours transactions as well as with? Anarchism born out of social capital or a pointless exercise?
What are your thoughts on the timebank schemes (1)? Bougeoise cover for capitalist exploitation? A chance to build community solidarity and mutual aid for a post capitalist society? Personally, I think any good they do is simply offsetting some of the problems of capitalism, but there can be good side effects too like with the Ithaca hours scheme.
(1)
mr economista
What "social capital" actually means
14.04.2004 07:46
Suppose that the government then decides that the well-known figure is an illegal immigrant and must leave the country. In this case, the social capital would manifest itself as support for an anti-deportation campaign - in other words, as solidarity rather than as economic activity.
Social capital arises essentially from the values, standards and mutual trust within society. Social networks based on shared values, principles, trust, visions and mutual respect play a key role in this. An initiative that makes use of a social network and fits into its shared values, principles and visions is more likely to succeed than one that doesn't. This is true whether the initiative is a business or a protest group. Interestingly, the average protest group has far more social capital than the average business...
(Adapted from
stuart
Give us an example in a Marxist-Leninist country!
14.04.2004 16:59
Is this Marxist Heaven Cuba? Is it China or North Korea? Is it Russia? Where is it then? Is it just in your head? in that case I have way better models in my head! want to hear about them? Let's be realistic. Capital doesn't have to be bad. Not neccessarily. The Power Makers make it so.
Sure I'm for living in the nature, let's go build our own communes somewhere outside the large cities. But we are yet to see one of these THEORIES actually WORK.
right now Capitalism is Working! to know this you have to be a a North Korean resident or a chinese or Russian or any where else outside a capitalist system and look at it from outside in! It is a dream right now for millions of people around the Globe to live in a capitalist country!
Come back and talk to me when you can name a communist country that millions around the globe are inspired to move and live there!
Human Aspirations for progress and a better life, hand in hand with Realistic expectations and Hard Work is behind every path humanity takes to move forward in time & space.
evilmonarchs
"right now Capitalism is Working!"
14.04.2004 22:25
True, starvation has largely been eliminated in a handful for imperial states, based largely on the exploitation of the poor world via for instance the illigitimate 'third world' debt. I abhor marxist-leninist authoritarianism but that does not invalidate much of Marx's analysis, merely his proposals, which even his contemporaries (e.g. Bakunin) realised would create totalitarianism.
The key to just economics seems to be in true democracy. At the very least recallable delegates etc... Studies consistently show that when power is more equitably distributed wealth follows it (doesn't it always?).
Mehrwert, I'm interested to hear you perspective on this and the other questions i posted above. I like having my opinions challenged, makes me think. ;-)
mr economista
Agreed! Power should be
16.04.2004 00:35
Yes, true. and this is exactly Americans state as their forieng policy! On the other hand the Britith foreign policy had always been suppression of masses using Islamist thugs and supporting theocractic dictatorial regimes.
Also, if that is what you truely belive in, it's time for the british monarchy to transfer their power to the people of Britain then. don't you think? and with that they should transfer their bank accounts to the people as well as open up the many palaces to the people to be used as PUBLIC SPACES!
My thoughts exactly, I'm glad we agree on that.
world wide
nice to see some interesting comments
16.04.2004 14:30
but then, hey, any clarity is largely thanks to karl marx ! anyway, i should acknowledge the sincerity of mr economista, while still stressing that the two options raised in our discussion are INCOMPATIBLE. in our current era, you can either have a CAPITALIST approach, OR a SOCIALIST approach. there CANNOT be a "social capitalism" for the reasons i try to outline with the quotation from "Theories of surplus value". expecting workers to manage their "own" capitalism is at best "pie in the sky" and at worst a nightmare. indeed, you could argue that the entire modern history of the working class has been PRECISELY the false notion that they are in charge of capitalism (isnt the Labour party spreading such a myth ?). it is surely the job of all socialists (anarchists, marxists and others) to enlighten the masses to the errors of the past, rather than to perpetuate them.
as for the example of a sucessful marxist-leninist country, i think the last decade has finally answered that particular puzzle. surely the collapse of living standards in Russia showed, bizarrely, that in certain aspects, things were better then. what about soviet central asia, where even democratic procedures have vanished, and American troops are heading back in as fast as they can. who engineered the overthrow of the regime in Tibilisi? have we forgotten that CUBA is one of the safest, most egalitarian of carribbean countries, with high health and literacy standards, and where RACIALISM is aboslutely BANNED... and perhaps the USAs illegal detention camp X- ray in Guantanamo has stiffened the resolve of the Cuban people not to succumb to American capitalism at any cost. Nobody ever pretended that the "soviet bloc" was without problems, but its apity that most of it had to collapse before we realised some of the benefits it brought. lets hope that China doesnt end up the same way...
mehrwert
china's progress is because of the Capital Model
17.04.2004 02:44
Perhaps we should have been in Tianimen Square to know how beautiful and free communism truely is. It's truely a shame the thoericians could not be there themselves! ;)
world wide
some latent replys
17.04.2004 08:16
The Americans state lots of things. Their actions are a better indication of their intentions. There is an important definitional issue here - what is called 'democracy' today represents a success of elite propaganda. A more correct term for 'democratic' political systems would be 'elective-oligarchy' - one election every 4 years and de facto dictatorship in between does not make for a democratic society. US foreign policy is to create foreign governments willing to serve US capital. Dictators are fine, real democracy's a no-no since people might do something silly like have a nationalised health service.
mehrwert - "you can either have a CAPITALIST approach, OR a SOCIALIST approach"
I'm afraid you fall into the dichotomous trap here. I understand what you're getting at - a collective in a capitalist society must still take bank loans etc - but it simply doesn't break down so simply.
A society of collectives exchanging in a market using a mutual credit currency, with state-provided heathcare for instance has features of both extremes of the continuum, plus a different currency system.
I highly recommend you take a look at M Rowbotham 'The Grip of Death' and 'Goodbye America!' - the area of monetary reform has changed by perception of Marx's crisis in capitalism.
Marx foresaw capitalism facing ever-declining profits and being forced to grow. What he didn't see was the monetary driver for this. Since banks create 95% + of the currency in circulation in a modern capitalist economy, 95% + of the money stock must be repaid PLUS interest. This would create a net outflow of cash from the economy (the interest forming the bank's profit) UNLESS a set of new loans are undertaken equal to the value of the debt repaid. This means an every increasing debt burden on people (credit cards, mortgages etc), corporations (they take loans too), and the State (via the national debt). This means our monetary system demands constant growth to prevent reccession/collapse - pretty much what Marx was saying.
world wide - "how beautiful and free communism truely is."
you dive headfirst into the dichotomous trap also. Because an alternative system is totalitarian and oppresive doesn't mean the present system is beyond reproach. Otherwise I could point to Hitler as an example of how all capitalism is evil - an oversimplification.
A multitude of possible socio-economic-political-ecological possibilities exist, but people get caught up on predefined packages like capitalism, socialism, communism, anarchism. Take the bits that work and leave the bits that don't. For instance it would be perfectly possible to have Cuba's health care without the execution of political opponents or censoring of the internet. The 'failiure' of many socialist countries is also largely due to the economic/military dominance of the US who tries their best to make sure they fail. Escape dichotomy, embrace possibility (hey! I'm sloganeering!)
mr economista
for the record
24.04.2004 15:23
mehrwert
Lets Give Mehrwert a Bit of Support Here !
29.04.2004 14:43
What is it that seems to make Marx stand out above most other socialist activists, and theoreticians, economists, historians of any kind ? Simply that he was a philosopher in his own right, and a great one at that, on a par with Socrates or Kant (or any the names you see on library shelves).
Bill Bore