Trevor’s review of The Story of Capital: What Everyone Should Know About How Capital Works > Likes and Comments
45 likes · Like
Yes, doing very well. I think capitalism is best defined as a social relation to production where labour is a commodity that is purchased and that has the ability to produce more than it costs to purchase. This produces a profit that is then taken by the capitalist, the purchaser of the labour, and thus the cycle begins again. All of the complications that follow, from credit to the money system, to colonial expansion, to monopoly concentration all stem from this basic feature. That is, that capitalism does not just produce commodities highly efficiently, but that it does so by first turning us into commodities as well.
Very interesting. Now the money question: What would an alternative to this look like?
On the bit about turning us into commodities, I find really interesting what Karl Polanyi said which was - and I have to say I'm paraphrasing because I haven't read him - the problem with capitalism is that it not only commodifies the things that normal people buy - cars, university degrees, somebody to serve you coffee in a café - but also three other things which don't commodify as easily: land, money, and labour. I think he called them fictitious commodities. All of these are interesting - the land one preoccupies me a lot in my day job - but what about money? So interesting. Think of the 2008 crash, how various banks and lenders just repackaged those dodgy mortgages over and over again and sold them on, passing from one lender to another, becoming increasingly arcane and impossible to understand but at each stage generating a profit for somebody.
Mh, Financial Capitalism. Polanyi is still on my chopping block, will be fun though. You should read him!
Hi Trevor, thanks so much for the pointer.
Thanks Rupinder. Just seeing the earlier comments now. I’ve read Polanyi. Well worth the effort.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
Yes, doing very well. I think capitalism is best defined as a social relation to production where labour is a commodity that is purchased and that has the ability to produce more than it costs to purchase. This produces a profit that is then taken by the capitalist, the purchaser of the labour, and thus the cycle begins again. All of the complications that follow, from credit to the money system, to colonial expansion, to monopoly concentration all stem from this basic feature. That is, that capitalism does not just produce commodities highly efficiently, but that it does so by first turning us into commodities as well.
Very interesting. Now the money question: What would an alternative to this look like?
On the bit about turning us into commodities, I find really interesting what Karl Polanyi said which was - and I have to say I'm paraphrasing because I haven't read him - the problem with capitalism is that it not only commodifies the things that normal people buy - cars, university degrees, somebody to serve you coffee in a café - but also three other things which don't commodify as easily: land, money, and labour. I think he called them fictitious commodities. All of these are interesting - the land one preoccupies me a lot in my day job - but what about money? So interesting. Think of the 2008 crash, how various banks and lenders just repackaged those dodgy mortgages over and over again and sold them on, passing from one lender to another, becoming increasingly arcane and impossible to understand but at each stage generating a profit for somebody.
Mh, Financial Capitalism. Polanyi is still on my chopping block, will be fun though. You should read him!
Hi Trevor, thanks so much for the pointer.
Thanks Rupinder. Just seeing the earlier comments now. I’ve read Polanyi. Well worth the effort.
---
I started reading Kropotkins autobiography, by accident (was looking for a different book by the same title). It reads very well (so far), maybe you'd like it too. Hope you are doing well,
Camilla