4 ms·
Wikipedia defines capital as "a factor of production that is not wanted for itself but for its ability to help in producing other goods". That's the definition
by narag 9y ago
Wikipedia defines capital as "a factor of production that is not wanted for itself but for its ability to help in producing other goods". That's the definition I learned in high school while studying Marx.
There is not an "after capital" world. To manufacture anything you need capital first. Even for software services you need software, that's also capital. So to reach a world of post-scarcity you need a lot of capital.
- aninhumer 9y agoThe argument being made here is not that we don't need the things we call capital, it's that we have enough capital now that allocating it is not the primary problem we need our economy to solve, and that the current system we use to do so (i.e. Capitalism) is limiting our ability to prioritise anything other than the creation of more capital. Therefore I would read the title not as "after capital ceases to exist" but "after capital ceases to be as relevant".
- gt_ 9y agoFair point. But, the concerns with attention are the other part of this thesis. How is attention related to capital?. I think this is a fair question. Something worth considering in relating this to Marx is that while Karl Marx did not live at a time that would have favored a deep awareness of media, his work is very concerned with culture. His more economic terminology was "human relations" and how capital mediates human relations. These days, what we call media ("mediation" of human communication) is at the root of our concerns with attention. Having studied Marx, I assume my eagerness to relate his work to contemporary economics discussions might seem desperate but it seems desperate to me that others try so hard to do otherwise. I hope you'll forgive me. Marx did live in a more simple time but the wonder of his work is that he identified so much of the forces that guide our society. Even living at a time when attention was at a surplus, his work is robust and thoughtful enough to translate in more modern times.
- aninhumer 9y agoIf you're interested in the role of attention under capitalism, I would recommend Peter Coffin's videos: https://www.youtube.com/user/petercoffin https://www.youtube.com/user/petercoffin Most of his stuff is focused on how attention is used to manipulate people's worldview in the "Marketplace of Ideas", but his latest video is about considering attention as labour. (Although, I thought it was a little unclear tbh)
- slx26 9y agoYes, I also understand that what the author talks about is a change in focus. Similarly, when he talks about the transition from the agrarian age to the industrial, he doesn't imply "land" disappeared, that would be absurd. I would also add that the author seems to be talking a lot about the transition, so maybe it's not so much "we have enough capital now", than "we're getting there in a few years/decades", and hence the question about what lies ahead. Well, he actually writes that: > Capital is already no longer scarce in some parts of the world and rapidly less scarce everywhere. Rapidly is a very relative term in this context.
- gimmeDatCheddar 9y agoIf capitalism is limiting our ability to prioritize anything other than the creation of more capital, how do you explain ventures like SpaceX, which are highly capitalistic but demonstrably moving humanity forward?
- aninhumer 9y agoI said "limits" not "prevents". During the Cold War both the USA and USSR developed their space programs extremely rapidly by deciding collectively to prioritise them. Since that ended, the industry has developed much more slowly in the absence of an obvious profit incentive. Indeed, even now, SpaceX has relied on collectively allocated resources from NASA for many of their contracts, not to mention all the research done during that period. And in any case, SpaceX is still an example of prioritising capital creation. SpaceX is a privately owned space launch system, which will likely primarily benefit other privately owned space industries in the near future. We may like that this particular capital is being created, but it's only a small part of the wider economy.
- haZard_OS 9y agoThe definition you cite is not quite right (from a Marxian perspective). According to Marx, capital is an accumulation of money used to purchase something so that it may be sold again AND whose consumption brings about an increase in the value of the commodity. https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/a.htm https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/a.htm
- JoeAltmaier 9y agoWow how could Marx have gotten it so wrong? Capital can be used to purchase goods consumed by the self (as is the case with almost everybody). Or to collect as collateral against risk. Or to invest. Or, really, all the real reasons we use it.
- crapital 9y agoHave you considered the possibility that you yourself don't understand what capital is, and are confusing it with money? Or no, disregard that, obviously Marx is the one with the major misapprehension here.
- JoeAltmaier 9y agoOh I get it! By redefining common words, you create an 'in group' of pseudo-intellectuals who know the 'real truth' about whatever. Thanks, I'll bow out of this.
- gt_ 9y agoThat is not an accurate assessment of this scenario. The idea that capital == money is merely the guiding basis of capitalism.
- crapital 9y ago> capital (countable and uncountable, plural capitals) > 1. (uncountable, economics) Already-produced durable goods available for use as a factor of production, such as steam shovels (equipment) and office buildings (structures). Join the in-group: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/capital#Noun https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/capital#Noun
- digi_owl 9y agoFunny thing the scenario you put forward in the last part is exactly how Marx envisioned the transition from capitalism to socialism (iirc, communism was seen as a possible stepping stone). Thus he expected it to happen in heavily industrialized nations like Germany or UK back when he was writing. Supposedly Lenin was able to meet Marx once before the latter died, and asked Marx about his opinion on bootstrapping Russia straight to socialism. Marx thought it a folly as the nation lacked the industrialization that Marx figured was a prerequisite.