Re: [OPE-L] interpretations of capital and Marx

From: Jerry Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Tue Mar 13 2007 - 10:34:05 EDT

It is neither wrong nor logically inconsistent if we define capital, by following Marx, as 'money that makes more money' for the following reasons: When we say 'capital', it includes both 'constant capital' and 'variable capital'. But 'constant capital' is that part of money which does not make more money (that is its value remains constant) while 'variable capital' is that part of money which makes more money (that is it creates more value than its own). This is internal aspect of capital as a whole. The external aspect or result of capital is the fact that some amount of money invested in production process makes more money at the end of the process (though realised in circulation process). We have formulae like 'm-c-m1'.

Hi Bupuji and Ranga: 

What I was suggesting was very simple:  capital, as you say, 
includes both c and v.  If  capital is defined in such a way that
it is money that makes more money then it is equivalent to saying
that c is not capital.  If you say instead that capital is the 
productive investment of surplus value (as distinct from the
unproductive consumption of surplus value), then capital includes 
both c and v.  

In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 01:00:12 EDT