Formalist anthropologists like Schneider often note this derivation in
arguing that cattle are 'wealth' in pastoralist communities like the Maasai.
However, the only term in Maasai language that could be legitimately (and
even then only roughly) translated as 'wealthy person,' *olkarsis*,
indicates a person with several children who need not have many cattle,
while the word *oltetia* denotes one with many cattle but no children, in
Maasai society a person of little influence and social standing. Note also
there is no private property, nor 'ownership' in the sense of exclusive
rights of any kind. Exchange never entails definitive alienation of a gift.
There are a number of kinds of 'institutionalized sharing' however.
We now see another contradiction, as we are faced with a situation in which
there would be society's with 'social capital' but no other kind of capital.
Again, what is the usefulness of the term here?
-----Original Message-----
From: J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 4:55 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:8116] Re: RE: Re: RE: Social Capital
Speaking of the evolution of terms, the word
capital itself originally meant a head of cattle in Latin.
A pecus was just one cow, from which we get the
word pecuniary, also Latin. I understand that the word
fee is from faihu, Old German for a head of cattle.
Barkley Rosser
-----Original Message-----
From: Forstater, Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 5:31 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:8111] RE: Re: RE: Social Capital
>It reminds me of the evolution of the word "rent" in the 'discipline'. Now
>everything is "capital", and everyone gets ('seeks') "rents".
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 4:07 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [PEN-L:8110] Re: RE: Social Capital
>
>
> Of course there is yet another annoying idea
>floating around that indeed all factors of production
>are just sub-species of capital, at least those that
>are not just immediately used up in production.
>The point is that their future returns can be capitalized
>into a present value, even if like labor in a non-slave
>society, they cannot be bought and sold as an asset.
>This would certainly apply to land.
> However, if somebody asks me for a source
>where I have seen this stated, I am afraid I don't remember.
>Barkley Rosser
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Forstater, Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 4:26 PM
>Subject: [PEN-L:8105] RE: Social Capital
>
>
>>Let me see if I can think this through. (Maggie, it is just like Ross
>Thomson's
>>class our first semester at the New School. Tell me if I have remembered
>right).
>>
>>Let's think about the circuits of capital. M-C-M' can be broken down to
>be:
>>
>> -LP
>>M - C -MP (machines, tools,...P...C' - M'
>> natural resources)
>>
>>where M' = M + deltaM and M' > M (assuming realization at a profit)
>>
>>and C' > C that is, the value of the commodities produced is greater than
>the
>>value of the commodities purchased with the money capital initially.
>>
>>( M = money capital; C = commodities; LP is labor power; MP = means of
>>production; P is the production process)
>>
>>C is capital-value in the commodity form. P is the production process,
but
>the
>>combination of labor power and means of production in the production
>process is
>>also called the productive form of capital, or P. Also, C is made up of
>constant
>>capital and variable capital, the former which is means of production, the
>>latter which is labor power. Consumption of the constant and variable
>capital
>>results in the expanded value through its combination in the production
>process.
>>The new or surplus-value (s-v) is the difference between the value of the
>>commodity labor power and the value produced by that labor power; labor
>power
>>produces a value greater than its own value (which is equal to the value
of
>the
>>means of subsistence). The circuit therefore requires a specific social
>form of
>>production, in which some, capitalists, own the means of production, and
>others,
>>workers, possess only their own labor power. Thus workers are compelled to
>sell
>>their labor power to capitalists ("double freedom" requirement). This
>specific
>>social relation (capitalist: worker) is a pre-condition of the capital
>circuit,
>>and is itself reproduced by the process of the circuit.
>>
>>Now all this would seem to suggest that labor power is capital, it is a
>>form--one of the forms--that capital takes, when it is in its commodity
>form, C,
>>and its productive form, P. In addition, it is variable capital,
therefore
>>capable of self-expansion.
>>
>>But I think there are still some problems to be worked out here. My
>hesitation
>>about calling labor power "capital" is I think rooted in two broad areas
of
>>concern. One is the distinctiveness of labor power as a commodity. The
>other is
>>the distinctiveness of "capital goods," especially 'machine tools.' This
>would
>>take a long time to go into detail. Maybe I can summarize it later if
>anyone's
>>interested.
>>
>>But when I start to think about this, what becomes pretty clear is that
the
>idea
>>of 'social capital' would have been ripped to absolute shreds by Marx.
>Imagine
>>the venom he would spew, based on our familiarity with the way he dealt
>with
>>things like Senior's Last Hour and Malthus's population theory, etc. The
>other
>>thing that comes to mind is that if they ever let me teach micro again (I
>was
>>absolutely not allowed to teach micro at Gettysburg in no uncertain terms!
>They
>>did let me teach it at Bard. I haven't here at UMKC yet), this is what I
am
>>going to teach. What's the best thing to use, still Sweezy's Theory of
>>Capitalist Development, or the old basic guides to Marx by Foley (too
>advanced),
>>B. Fine, L. Harris, Mandel? Then use some of the Hartman and Folbre
>materials
>>that brings in patriarchy into it?
>>
>>Mat
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Charles Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 12:46 PM
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: [PEN-L:8089] Social Capital
>>
>>
>>Let me hasten to say that I agree with you. I got a bit caught up in
trying
>to
>>think out the terminological puzzle you posed, but I think maybe your main
>point
>>was the issue of the confusion that specifically "social capital" as a
term
>and
>>concept poses for cogent analysis of capital.
>>
>>I think that Marx ( and Marxists) might want to give the negative
>connotation
>>that you are commenting on to the relationship among the wage-laborer, her
>labor
>>power and the capitalist, so the reference to labor power as capital,
_once
>it
>>gets bought by the capitalist_, fits.
>>
>>I forgot to say it this way: labor power is not capital while still owned
>by the
>>wage-laborer. Labor power is not capital for the wage-laborer. It is only
>>capital for the capitalist.
>>
>>Charles
>>
>>
>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/14/01 01:15PM >>>
>>This is part of the reason why I think *more* uses, and especially more
>sloppy
>>uses (e.g. "social capital"), of the word capital is not what we need. It
>is
>>already tough enough, with finance capital vs. industrial capital, and
>capital
>>goods vs. money captial. These two pairs are not the same thing. Because
we
>can
>>have money capital that is industrial capital, right? It is capital in
its
>>money form in the circuit of capital, but that is in the sphere of
>industry, not
>>in financial markets or whatever. Obviously labor-power is not capital
>goods,
>>that we can be sure of. Labor-power isn't money capital, either. Now
>money
>>capital gives an industrial capitalist the power to purchase the commodity
>>labor-power, but does that make labor-power itself capital?
>>
>>((((((((((
>>
>>CB: I think it is once the capitalist buys it from the wage-laborer. It
>gets
>>used immediately by the capitalist, and it expresses itself as labor. That
>labor
>>is embodied in the commodity, and the capitalist, not the wage-laborer
owns
>the
>>commodity. The end product commodity is the form that capital takes at
>that
>>point.
>>
>>((((((((
>>
>>
>>Labor-power is a
>>commodity, sold by laborers, bought by capitalists. Hmmm. I think I
>understand
>>what ome are saying but I'll need to think about it.
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Charles Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 11:13 AM
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: [PEN-L:8084] Social Capital
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/13/01 03:57PM >>>
>>labor power is a commodity. that is different than labor power being
>capital. a
>>commodity is anything bought and sold in a market. the money used to
>purchase
>>labor power is part of the total capital. but labor power is not capital.
>right?
>>
>>(((((((((
>>
>>CB: Going back to this earlier question from Mat, in Marx's paradigm,
labor
>>power is not capital for the wage-laborer while she owns it , but when she
>sells
>>that labor power to the capitalist, it becomes part of the capital of the
>>capitalist.
>>
>>Capital is a form of private property. Property is not a thing, it is a
>>relationship between people regarding things. The relationship between the
>>wage-laborer and capitalist within capitalist property is that the
>wage-laborer
>>sells her labor power to the capitalist, who then owns it, which is to say
>has a
>>relationship of control over the labor power even prior to the
wage-laborer
>>herself ! The capitalist has the same relatioinship of dominance of the
>>direction and kind of labor to which the labor power is put as the
>capitalist
>>has over the other elements in the production process , the instruments
and
>>means of production. The labor power becomes the capitalist's property,
>private
>>property.
>>
>>
>
>
