I don't know whether understanding capital enhances or undermines the "overthrowing" of capitalism. I do know, though, that capitalism is the system of capital. So it seems to me that in order to answer your question we would first need to understand what capital is. That, in any event, was the task to which Marx devoted his entire life. Unfortunately, his value theory of accumulation turned out to be logically problematic and empirically impossible. We can stick to his logic, but then what exactly are we "overthrowing"?
Jonathan
Charles Brown wrote:
>How does such a reversal of Marx's concepts enhance the projects for
>overthrowing capitalism ?
>
>Charles
>
>-clip-
>Our claim is radically different.
>
>We argue against the very notion that capital derives its pecuniary
>quantities from some "substantive" reality based on "stuff" (whether
>measured in utils or abstract labor). As we see it, capital is the
>numerical architecture of capitalism, the basic code of the "capitalist
>nomos". Marx's distinction between "real" and "fictitious" capital
>should be reversed. Finance is the only real form of capital. The
>notions that machines can have a "quantity" is the fiction.
>
>Finance, or capitalization, represents the present value of expected
>feature earnings. The earnings and their discounting mechanism have
>nothing do with the quantity of any "stuff" such as machines, goods or
>services. Rather, they are the numerical representation of the power of
>exclusion. This power permeates the entire social process, from the
>assembly line, through formal politics, to religion, culture,
>consumption and what not. In that sense, capital represents the
>capitalization of power.
>
>The argument is articulated in the two papers.
>
>Jonathan Nitzan
>
>
>
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
>
>