[lbo-talk] NYT: "Too Much Capital"

Max B. Sawicky sawicky at bellatlantic.net
Sat Mar 26 10:41:11 PST 2005


My PC is capital, but its only power over me is the occasional spirit of Bill Gates.

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



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list