Communism

[anomaly]

Capital, as defined as my economics book, is any human made product (or acquired knowledge which is human capital) created for the sole purpose of facilitating future production. Money may fit into this definition, yes, but previously I have made the erroneous claim that 'in communism, capital is abolished'. So, in reality, communism simply opposes profit made from human labor, correct (human production should be strictly for human use)? Just trying to get my definition of communism down for future discussion here.

[Clarksist]

Sort of.

In a way, communism only makes capital which it can use, and makes no profit off of the workers.

But also, capital is abolished as there is only what is needed, and no profit... but it could go either way.

[anomaly]

But capital, if abolished, would lead to a stagnant, primitve, and boring society. A hammer, a machine, such are capital. We cannot abolish capital. fortunately, this simple concept is absolutely harmless, as products facilitating production really aren't a bad thing. It is only when profit rears its nasty head that the oppression of capitalism is finally felt. With communism, we simply want common ownership over capital (physical capital).

[Clarksist]

t is only when profit rears its nasty head that the oppression of capitalism is finally felt. With communism, we simply want common ownership over capital (physical capital).


Agreed.

And perhaps that is where our true fight begins.

Physical capital gained by the whole, rather than paper & electronic capital used for exploitation by the few.

It is the seperation of the whole and its capital, from the bourgeois, and its "fake" capital which has very real consequences. There is no possible way to avoid class war... if class war is upon you.

And the war will be a war of physical capital against capitalism.

[sanpal]

I agree as a whole, but you confuse two things: means of production and capital are not the same things. Capital appears under capitalist way of reproduction and it isn't always as means of production. Capital is an accumulated human labour which is used for getting of a surplus value.

[anomaly]

Sanpal has been reading up on Marx (haven't you?). I thought of that last night after I logged off. These bourgeois definitions I have learned are simply inconsistent with Marxist defintions. Marx says that capital is, essentially, accumulated profit. So, if we use Marx's definition, which by all rights we should, we do want to abolish capital. However, just incase you here some cappie economist say that capital 'cannot' be abolished, realize that he is using his own definitions of capital.

[NovelGentry]

Depends what kind of capital you're talking about -- here's a good breakdown.

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Capital_(economics)

If you're looking at the Marxist idea, then you might as well define communism as Marx defined it.


In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

[Luís Henrique]

I agree as a whole, but you confuse two things: means of production and capital are not the same things.

Exactly. Capital is a social relationship, not an amount of inanimated things.

You can spot the contradiction in "economics" books, when they say that both labour and capital "contribute" to the production of wealth - then capital appears to be alive and sencient, far from being just means of production - which, of course, cannot do anything by themselves.


Capital appears under capitalist way of reproduction and it isn't always as means of production.

Capital, in fact, is much older than the capitalist mode of production. Capital is self-reproducing money, and, as such, is known from about 2,500 years ago. Capitalism is when capital takes hold of production, and finds a way to reproduce without assimetries in economic exchange, because labour force is an exceptional commodity, whose consumption produces more wealth than is needed to maintain it during such consumption.

Ancient capital always depended on buying bellow value, or selling above it.


Capital is an accumulated human labour which is used for getting of a surplus value.

This would be valid also for slaveholders' or feudals' funds, which aren't capital. Capital is accumulated human labour which is used for obtaining surplus value in an always increased form, via market operations.

Luís Henrique

[Red Powers]

A nice clarification Luis Henrique. You saved me the trouble of posting and probably did a better job. Welcome to Rev Left comrade! :lol:

[OleMarxco]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 02:15 AM
But capital, if abolished, would lead to a stagnant, primitve, and boring society. A hammer, a machine, such are capital. We cannot abolish capital. fortunately, this simple concept is absolutely harmless, as products facilitating production really aren't a bad thing. It is only when profit rears its nasty head that the oppression of capitalism is finally felt. With communism, we simply want common ownership over capital (physical capital).
Sound's like State-Capitalism to me ;)
Whether or not it's the proletar's keepin' the control...it's not Socialism, as much as a very lite Capitalism...where the burgerouise are just oppressed, eh, but let to have their buisness severly restricted and the industry planned? I hope it's temporary, 'cuz, it's just NOT ENUFF.

[Luís Henrique]

Welcome to Rev Left comrade! :lol:

Thank you, comrade.

Luís Henrique

[sanpal]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 29 2005, 08:35 PM


Capital is a social relationship, not an amount of inanimated things.


Verily! But then I don't agree with your statements.


Capital, in fact, is much older than the capitalist mode of production. Capital is self-reproducing money, and, as such, is known from about 2,500 years ago.
Money is known from about 2,500 years ago but not capital, it is ccording your (!) definition which was quoted earlier.

[Luís Henrique]

Money is known from about 2,500 years ago but not capital, it is ccording your (!) definition which was quoted earlier.

Capital is just money put to increase itself. As such, it is quite ancient; the Greeks and the Phoenicians knew it.

Ancient capital took two distinct forms: commercial capital and usurary capital. Commercial capital can flourish whenever two different economies are close enough to each other that they can exchange goods, and far apart enough that the precise amount of work put into each economy's product is unknown to the average consumer in the other economy. Thence the characteristic bias towards "exotic" commodities. This allows the merchant to buy a commodity by its production price, then transport it overseas and sell it by a price that not only covers its production and transportation costs, but allows for a considerable profit margin. Money used to buy foreign commodities that will be sold for a profit certainly is money put to increase itself, so it is capital. That it depends essentially on a deception to obtain a profit is an independent issue.

Usurary capital is money lended to non-capitalists for an interest; it also is money put to increase itself, and, as such, capital. It also depends on non-economic factors to obtain its profit, but, again, this is a different issue.

Capitalism is when capital obtains control over the productive process. Then capital does no longer rely in deception to obtain a profit; it relies in the difference between the production cost of labour force and the product yelded by such labour force. This is surplus value.

Luís Henrique

[anomaly]

Can it not be said that capital, according to Marx, is simply accumulated profit?

[Luís Henrique]

Can it not be said that capital, according to Marx, is simply accumulated profit?

No. Accumulated profit that isn't used to obtain new profits is not capital.

Luís Henrique

[KC]

So, in reality, communism simply opposes profit made from human labor, correct (human production should be strictly for human use)?

Capitalism is a capital-based system. It is dependent on capital to survive. So yes, I guess you could say that communism opposes capital.



In a way, communism only makes capital which it can use, and makes no profit off of the workers.

Communism creates no capital. Capital is a product created for profit. There is no such thing as profit in a communist society.


But capital, if abolished, would lead to a stagnant, primitve, and boring society.

Why? A good or service can be produced without the intention of profit. This is what happens in communism. Am I misinterpreting this?



A hammer, a machine, such are capital. We cannot abolish capital.

A hammer and a machine are capital so long as they are made for profit. Capital isn't a physical thing. It is the social status of a product. So we can abolish capital.



With communism, we simply want common ownership over capital (physical capital).

With communism, we want the abolishment of capital.


I agree as a whole, but you confuse two things: means of production and capital are not the same things.

They can be. Say a company makes hammers. In this sense the hammer is capital. Say this company sells these hammers to a carpentry firm that builds houses. In this sense the hammer is a means of production. But this is just me being a smartass.

[ack]

Capital can also be things such as buildings or tractors.