From: brumback-AT-ncgate.newcollege.edu
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 22:03:28 -0700
Subject: Re: M-I: Leaders and Caudillos of the Left


>>Yes, Marx did give a brilliant analysis of capitalism. Even so, there are
>>many interpretations of Marx's words. Can we discuss an interpretation here
>>that at least some of us might agree on, or would that be too boring?
>>
>>"Capital" might be easier to define than "capitalism." 
>>
>>Capital is the monetary value that the owners of the means of production
>>acquire by appropriating the value of nature as well as part or all of the
>>value of the labor of both paid and unpaid workers.
>>
>>I know that's not Marx's word-for-word definition, but does it express the
>>essence?
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Nancy
>>
>
>
>No. Capital is a SOCIAL RELATION, not just monetary value.
>
>Adolfo
>
>
Also, Hariette Spierings wrote:

>No. Capital is a SOCIAL RELATION, not just monetary value.

And "monetary value" itself is a social relation too. As Marx said, a man
[sic] carries his bond with society in his pocket.

Doug



OK. Well, in my reading of Marx, "value" is described not as "social," but
as a "social property" of abstract labor, which comes about under the social
relations unique to capitalism. So, how about:

Under the social relations of capitalism, capital is the monetary value that
the owners of the means of production acquire by appropriating the value of
nature as well as part or all of the value of the labor of both paid and
unpaid workers.

Nancy



     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---