Re: [OPE] CAPITAL AS POWER: free PDF download

From: Paul Cockshott <>
Date: Tue Dec 21 2010 - 02:50:21 EST

I think if you try to be more concrete you will find that social relations do not just involve people since a portion of the employee relation might be

Greg Chaitin, IBM
Kurt Wallander, Ystad Police
Endeavor Morse, Oxford Police
Jamie Fergusson, John Brown and Company

In other words the employer is usually not a person

--- original message ---
From: "Dave Zachariah" <>
Subject: Re: [OPE] CAPITAL AS POWER: free PDF download
Date: 20th December 2010
Time: 9:24:20 pm

On 2010-12-20 22:01, Paul Cockshott wrote:
> Is that adequate ? To define the relations just over the agents?
> What about other material objects?
I thought of them as implicit in a relation. E.g. X is a working
employee of Y, not by mere legal encoding but also by their mutual
relation to the means of production controlled by the latter.

> Why is there just one minimal class?
> Why not several.
> What is the ordering operator over classes of raltions that enables you to say a class is minimal?
Considering the class of all relations first, only a subset of these
directly ensure the immediate needs for the agents to reproduce
themselves over a small time horizon. Hence I was thinking of the
cardinality of the subclasses containing relations of reproduction.

For a given time horizon there should be a class of established sets of
relations of reproduction, of minimum cardinality, which would ensure
the reproduction of the agents.

//Dave Z
ope mailing list

The University of Glasgow, charity number SC004401
ope mailing list
Received on Tue Dec 21 02:51:49 2010

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Dec 31 2010 - 00:00:02 EST