Well, of course in a very crude sense, what
yuppies call "networking" may well be simply a
matter of accumulating social capital. Certainly
to the extent that such networking leads not only
to "contacts," but to mutual backscratching and
quid pro quos. The latter certainly look like social
capital in the Bourdieu reciprocity sense.
Barkley Rosser
-----Original Message-----
From: ALI KADRI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 4:47 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:8058] Re: Social Capital
>Isn't everything social to begin with, so may be
>social represents the category of totality. hence, in
>the beginning there was social being and social
>consciousness where the former reflects man's material
>relation with nature etc.. and the latter how one
>expresses those relations. My immediate understanding
>of social capital is not business like, ie that the
>more people one knows the more social capital one
>acquires. my understanding of it is the sum total
>society's accumulated wealth (namely commodities) but
>also including the social cost of the reproduction of
>the labour force, which generally includes the
>non-re-numerated domestic economy. Human capital
>represents a bastardization of the latter concept in
>the sense that it commodifies certain human qualities
>that are a product of the re-numerated market and
>cheapens the rest of the social cost associated with
>the formation of the labour force. i have heard some
>argue for a pay rate associated with birthing labour
>time, is this not human capital. so to end, everything
>is social and so is capital which is in the process of
>self differentiation in particular aspects of itself
>under capitalism, ie organic constant variable. if one
>says otherwise and gave life to things and allowed
>things to dictate the development of man then, i do
>not want to sound repetitive here, then to use the f
>word "fetishism" places primacy on the development of
>the means of production outside a specific social
>relation. that cannot be .. well certainly in Marxism.
>--- Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> CB:Not so much disagreeing with Barkley ( since this
>> is a something of a "social "free association
>> discussion ), but in Marx's sense, aren't all
>> capitals commodities ? Labor power is a commodity.
>>
>> Investing in labor power by going to college is a
>> form of training in Marx's scheme. Trained labor
>> adds more value per time to the commodity than
>> untrained labor
>>
>>
>> To Mat :
>>
>> On Jim's comment about Marxian terminology, money
>> capital is required to
>> purchase labor-power. So that portion of capital is
>> variable capital, but labor
>> power itself is not capital. Yes?
>>
>> CB: Labor power is a commodity in Marx's scheme ,
>> does that make it conceptually "capitalizable", or a
>> necessary factor in the capital relation ?
>>
>> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/13/01 02:33PM >>>
>> Actually, one of the conceptual problems with
>> social capital as compared with human capital
>> is that there is no commodification of it. One can
>> borrow money to go to college, thus "investing"
>> (in both time and money) in one's human capital
>> (potential). And in slavery, there is outright
>> human
>> capital in the buying and selling of human beings,
>> although masters tend to limit their investment in
>> the human capital of their slaves for fear that they
>> will either escape or revolt.
>> But, how does one commidify "trust" or
>> "community"?
>> Barkley Rosser
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Date: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 1:44 PM
>> Subject: [PEN-L:8034] Social Capital
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/13/01 01:01PM >>>
>> >At 10:20 AM 2/13/01 -0600, you wrote:
>> >> have a problem with the term "social capital."
>> First, in economics they
>> are
>> >>already using the term "human capital" for labor
>> power, with rational
>> >>individuals "investing" to seek maximum return
>> over time, etc. Lester
>> Thurow
>> >>actually pointed out some of the problems with
>> this years ago, but in any
>> >>case,
>> >>now we have "natural capital" being used for
>> natural resources by the
>> >>ecological
>> >>economics crowd, so the earth and nature has to be
>> capital now too, so now
>> >>we've
>> >>gone from "land, labor, and capital" to just three
>> kinds of capital "human
>> >>capital, natural capital, and...what...capital
>> capital, i guess? So
>> >>everything
>> >>is capital.
>> >
>> >it's interesting to remember that Marx referred to
>> the commodity
>> >labor-power as "variable capital," pointing out its
>> subordinate character
>> >in the process of capitalist accumulation. Perhaps
>> we convince those who
>> >use the phrase "human capital" to do likewise...
>> >
>> >((((((((
>> >
>> >CB: "Capital capital" ,that's a capital idea !
>> >
>> >Jim's comment is what crossed my mind, though I
>> want to identify with Mat's
>> frustration.
>> >
>> >For the alienating , commodity fetishizing
>> subjectivity of the capitalist
>> the mask Marx wears in _Capital_) , the worker is a
>> thing and the commodity
>> is alive. Perhaps the terminology "social capital"
>> is a modern reflection
>> of commodity fetishism.
>> >
>> >Taking Jim's point a little further, Marx also
>> noted that capital is not a
>> thing, but a relationship between people regarding
>> things, or the like.
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
>a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>
>
