Now you could define capital is only that which is hierarchical, but that misses a lot of individuals, families, and other conceivable, close-knit combinations of people that would defy the designation of hierarchical. It would be a less than general theory.
mbs
-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]On Behalf Of Doug Henwood Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2005 1:17 PM To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: RE: [lbo-talk] NYT: "Too Much Capital"
Max B. Sawicky wrote:
>Yes, but some capital is non-hierarchical and
>some hierarchy does not spring from capital.
I agree with the second part, but not the first. What's capital if it's not hiearchical? Machinery is owned by capitalist and worked by proles; money capital represents the proceeds of SV extraction and is ultimately a claim on the time of workers. ("Money has but one face, that of the boss." - Negri)
Doug ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk