As far as potatoes are concerned, yes, but capital isn't a sack of potatoes*, so looking into individuals, even if the individuals are indeed capitalists, doesn't tell us much about capital.
* Unlike French small-holders in the mid-19th century, whom Marx likened to "a sack of potatoes" in _The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte_, capital is not "self-sufficient."
>I seem to recall Lenin saying that without revolutionary theory
>there is no revolutionary movement. The old dead white guy was
>right. Now how can the question of class, and class composition, be
>of anything but central importance to a marxist, whose action is
>supposedly for the working class against capitalism? It comes back
>to the level of abstraction thing again doesn't it. Knowing exactly
>who the capitalists are might not help you decide within the next
>five minutes as to whether to go down to the demonstration or to
>turn on the TV instead, but it does influence your broad world
>outlook. That's what theory is supposed to do. It's a question of
>your broad cognitive organisation. It's not a little piece of
>information that helps you to decide what to do next. BTW I do think
>that there is an element of rhetoric in the above question, in that
>the answer is already given earlier. Those people who pose
>theoretical questions are those people who do "nothing in
>particular", who don't do GOOD WORKS (oh hell, here I go again). We
>all, without exception, act in the world, and in that sense there is
>no such thing as "doing nothing in particular", and the way we act
>in the world is partly a function of how we think about the world.
>There may be another implication here and that is that discussion
>lists should not be about theoretical questions, but only for making
>very specific kinds of arrangements. Well that is not so very
>different from the earlier poi
>The question of how very ordinary people live their lives, how their
>values and beliefs are formed and find expression in their daily
>activities, etc., etc. This is all of far greater political
>significance than the grand political gesture of the terminally
>committed. Oh how does one even begin to explain....?
>Tahir
What's theory in the Marxist tradition, though? Defining what "a capitalist" is first of all (independently of labor), measuring concrete individuals by the resulting definition, and classifying some who "fit" the definition into the "class" -- which are what is demanded by those who wish to ask the question Eric Dorkin mentioned -- militate against the spirit of Marxist theorizing. -- Yoshie
* Calendar of Events in Columbus: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html> * Anti-War Activist Resources: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html> * Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/>