I heard someone saying that capitalists are just the "human representatives of capital". Am I right in thinking this is really just vague metaphysics. Surely capital (i.e. machinery, land etc.) can't have representatives. And capitalism is a set of relationships and ways of behaving between human beings, so isn't it a bit abstract to talk about it as something outside of these human beings? Can anybody explain what is meant by the phrase?
Apr 5 2006 14:02
Apr 5 2006 14:05
suppose you could say since capital is a social relation it exists through people (representatives). that would mean both workers and capitalists are the human representatives of capital ...
Apr 6 2006 14:49
revol68 wrote:
Joseph K. wrote:
suppose you could say since capital is a social relation it exists through people (representatives). that would mean both workers and capitalists are the human representatives of capital ...yep, and capital is nothing but the representative of human activity set against itself. The latest god that requires a bloody sacrifice.
arent we feeling poetic today?
perhaps they meant that capitalists are the representatives of the interests of capital. that would make more sense