Angelus:
_Capital_ is an abstract depiction of the *capitalist*
features of capitalism. That is, a depiction of the
social relationships that mark off capitalism as
distinct from other systems of social relationships.
Relationships, not definitons. Relationships, not
definitions. Relationships, not defintions. Repeat.
Who is this addressed to? I already pointed out that I am wary of
thinking in terms of "definitions".
The system of free wage labour is essential to those
relationships. Ricardo and Smith had already arrived
at value theories based upon the magnitude of human
embodied (bad word choice) in a commodity. Marx's
innovation was investigating the ensemble of social
relationships in which human labour power is
manifested in commodity form.
So how would you describe King Leopold's Congo? "Non-capitalist"?
"Pre-capitalist?" As I have pointed out previously, European
feudalism was a system characterized by inattention to efficiency. As
Michael Perelman pointed out in "The Invention of Capitalism":
"Although their standard of living may not have been particularly
lavish, the people of precapitalistic northern Europe, like most
traditional people, enjoyed a great deal of free time. The common
people maintained innumerable religious holidays that punctuated the
tempo of work. Joan Thirsk estimated that in the sixteenth and early
seventeenth centuries, about one-third of the working days, including
Sundays, were spent in leisure. Karl Kautsky offered a much more
extravagant estimate that 204 annual holidays were celebrated in
medieval Lower Bavaria."
Does that sound like 17th century Bolivia? Or King Leopold's Congo?
If none of this is important to you, you would be much
better off in joining Andre Gunder Frank and rejecting
the category "capitalism" altogether. That is the
only consistent conclusion for the sort of argument
you are advocating.
Frankly, you should keep your patronizing attitude to your self, Mr.
Defender of Israel.
