Hello,

I found this list via Jim Farmelant's post on Marxmail. After reading 
Waistline's arguments about the macro economic composition of capital and his 
brave challenge that provokes us to provide evidence to the existence of the 
"SECTOR" called "industrial capital", eventually I decided to subscribe to the 
list and post a small contribution to the debate. 

I think the fundamental error of Waistline's claim resides in confusion of 
dialectical method with the descriptive dimension of dialectical analysis. 
Therefore, he takes the concepts literally whereas their purpose is to reflect 
diverse forms of the object in its dialectical movement. 

When Marx accuses the political economy for throwing commercial capital and 
industrial capital together and overlooking the characteristics of former, he 
does not, in any sense, blame them for neglecting the categorical division of 
capital but draws attention to the diverse forms of capital in the operation of 
capitalist accumulation. 

For instance, in the vol. 3 of Capital, Marx says, "...our purpose, which is to 
define the specific difference of this special form of capital":

"We have explained (Book II, Chapter VI, "The Costs of Circulation,") to what 
extent the transport industry, storage and distribution of commodities in a 
distributable form, may be regarded as production processes continuing within 
the process of circulation. These episodes incidental to the circulation of 
commodity-capital are sometimes confused with the distinct functions of 
merchant's or commercial capital. Sometimes they are, indeed, practically bound 
up with these distinct, specific functions, although with the development of 
the social division of labour the function of merchant's capital evolves in a 
pure form, i.e., divorced from those real functions, and independent of them. 
Those functions are therefore irrelevant to our purpose, which is to define the 
specific difference of this special form of capital. In so far as capital 
solely employed in the circulation process, special commercial capital, partly 
combines those functions with its specific
 ones, it does not appear in its pure form. We obtain its pure form after 
stripping it of all these incidental functions."

So when Marx applies the concepts such as, "industrial capital", "industrial 
capitalists", "fictitious capital", "commercial capitalists" and so on, he 
designates singular forms of capital in the movement of its being but not the 
specific categorical divisions of capital. 

With this in mind, also when Lenin invoked the "financial capital" or when 
Sweezy, talked about "the triumph of financial capital" they were merely 
describing the distinctive characteristics of a specific form which is the core 
of imperialist exploitation. 

I think the answer of Waistline's question is quite easy: There is no such a 
thing as "industrial capital sector" or industrial capital as a subdivision in 
the totality of capital. And in this sense, there is no financial capital too. 

The supposed difficulty of this question rises on the bizarre confusion about 
categories and forms.


Mehmet Çagatay
http://weblogmca.blogspot.com/


      

_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis

Reply via email to