Log in

View Full Version : The different definitions of "capital" - Marxist and otherwise



Die Neue Zeit
24th June 2011, 15:37
http://www.revleft.com/vb/economics-major-definition-t156830/index.html

Just how many definitions of "capital," Marxist or otherwise, are there? :confused:

Classical economics:


In classical economics, capital is one of three factors of production, the others being land and labour. Goods with the following features are capital:

It can be used in the production of other goods (this is what makes it a factor of production).

It is human-made, in contrast to "land," which refers to naturally occurring resources such as geographical locations and minerals.

It is not used up immediately in the process of production, unlike raw materials or intermediate goods.


Capital in "economics" should strictly be any of proprietary, partnership, or shareholder equity.

Finance:


The problem is that finance blurs this to also include long-term debt, most notably in discussions on Weighted Average Cost of Capital.

Financial reporting:


Then, there are long-term assets to consider as well. When considering other subject areas, this is understandable, because there are financial instruments that are equity in form but long-term debt in substance (like certain kinds of preferred shares) and classified according to the latter, and vice versa.

[Re. long-term assets: because of things like goodwill and other intangible assets, there is a move away from using "capital assets" in business parlance and towards "property, plant, and equipment."]

Finally, there the various forms of capital encountered in Marx's works. M-C-M' and M-C...P...C-M' are not the same as "the means of production" (constant capital) are not the same as "dead labour, that, vampire-like, only lives by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks" (again, I'm sure this quote isn't referring to money in action).

ZeroNowhere
24th June 2011, 15:40
I'm fairly sure that money in action qua value (and hence qua money) is dead labour. And the M-C...P...C'-M' process is certainly the process of dead labour sucking living labour and hence increasing itself.

Die Neue Zeit
25th June 2011, 05:13
It sucks living labour for sure, but I don't see speculation as any form of "labour." That's like the classical economics trap of "labour and enterprise" creating value.

Zanthorus
25th June 2011, 17:46
All you are demonstrating here is that you have no idea what you are talking about. Of course speculation isn't any form of labour, neither is purchasing means of production, raw materials and labour-power. The point is not that finance capitalist perform labour, but that they use objectified, past labour-time in the form of financial wealth to accumulate new wealth, the source of which, in the last analysis, must be surplus-value, extracted from living labour. By dead labour that lives vampire-like off of living labour Marx is referring precisely to the circulation of money as capital in all it's forms.

Die Neue Zeit
25th June 2011, 18:50
You know, he could have just said "like a vampire, living only by sucking labour" without distinguishing between "living labour" and "dead labour."

[Although I like the possibility of having "living labour" and "undead labour" with the latter referring to machine output :D ]

Kotze
25th June 2011, 19:58
past labour-time in the form of financial wealthDo you believe currency has exchange value based on the labour-time that goes into producing it?

ZeroNowhere
25th June 2011, 19:59
You know, he could have just said "like a vampire, living only by sucking labour" without distinguishing between "living labour" and "dead labour."
He could have, yes. Why?

Zanthorus
25th June 2011, 20:11
Do you believe currency has exchange value based on the labour-time that goes into producing it?

Well, commodity money like gold obviously has value yes. It seems to me that bank notes do not themselves have value but are merely symbolic representatives of value, so in that sense I suppose that financial wealth is not actually dead labour, though it does symbolise it.

ar734
25th June 2011, 21:37
Do you believe currency has exchange value based on the labour-time that goes into producing it?

? Does money have a price based on labor? The price of money is interest. When a dollar/euro/yen/etc of value is created the worker gets 1.00 less the surplus-value. The surplus-value is divided up into profit, interest, and to a lesser extent rent. Isn't this basically what Marx argued?