[PEN-L:9393] panel for URPE

[Michael Perelman <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Forwarded message:
From: nitzan@xxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 1997 13:58:43 -0400
To: michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
X-UID: 1272

To: michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Dear Michael Perlman:

Would you be kind enough to circulate the enclosed message on the PEN-L system?

Thanks, Jonathan Nitzan

****************************************************************************************************
Call for Papers:

CAPITAL ACCUMULATION AND SOCIAL POWER
(Organized by Shimshon Bichler and Jonathan Nitzan)

Contact:
Jonathan Nitzan
E-Mail: nitzan@xxxxxxxxxx
fax: (514) 843 1763
office: (514) 499 6970, ext. 277
****************************************************************************************************
We are trying to organize one or more panels on the old but unresolved question of "WHAT IS CAPITAL?" and on the associated relationship between CAPITAL ACCUMULATION AND SOCIAL POWER

These panels are to be held in the coming URPE-ASSA meetings in Chicago, January 3-5, 1998.

At this point, we have two papers in mind. One titled "Differential Accumulation: Toward a New Political Economy of Capital," and another on "Political Aspects of Differential Accumulation" (on why differential accumulation see below). These papers specifically address the relationship between capital and power, and we are looking for additional perspectives on the subject.

If you are interested in presenting an article, please send me an abstract (maximum of 250 words) and the relevant contact information no later than April 30. The same deadline applies for those wishing to chair a session or be a discussant.

The URPE deadline for complete proposals is May 15. This will allow me time to organize the session/s. After April 30, any individual submission is better sent directly to the URPE organizer, Al Campbell, Department of Economics, BuC 308, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA.

***************************************************************

ON THE CONCEPT OF "DIFFERENTIAL ACCUMULATION"

Every theory of capitalism is based on a definition of capital. Yet surprising as it may seem, even after several centuries of capitalist development the concept of capital remains ambiguous and controversial. The conventional wisdom is that capital comprises produced means of production; that it has its own intrinsic productivity; that this productivity is proportionate to the underlying ?quantity? of capital; and, finally, that the return on capital is a function of its productivity. This ?materialistic? view of capital has been criticized heavily since the turn of the century because of its inherent circularity. In a nutshell, the problem is that the ?quantity? of capital cannot be measured independent of distribution, and since the latter is supposedly determined by the former, we end up putting the cart before the horse. Writers in the Marxist tradition have long emphasized that capital is a social relation, not a ?thing.? Yet, when it comes to defining what that means,!
 they use units of ?dead labour? w
hich again belong to the material sphere of production and consumption. The high--profile Cambridge Controversy of the 1960s established that a solely ?materialistic? definition of capital was logically impossible. However, for lack of an alternative, practitioners in the social sciences nonetheless continue to use this definition.

	The solution, we think, is to begin with a new definition of capital as power. Accumulation is usually associated with rapid mechanization and productivity gains, but these are technological processes; as such, they are not unique to capitalism and therefore cannot be equated with accumulation. Capital is often defined as privately owned means of production, though that too is insufficient. The value of capital represents discounted future earnings. Some of these earnings could be associated with the productivity (or exploitation) of the owned industrial apparatus, but this is only part of the story. As capitalism grows in complexity, the earnings of any given business concern come to depend less on its own industrial undertakings and more on the community?s overall productivity. In this sense, the value of capital represents a distributional claim. This claim is manifested partly through ownership, but more broadly through the whole spectrum of social power. Moreover, powe!
r is not only a means of accumulat
ion, but also its most fundamental end. For the absentee owner, the purpose is not to ?maximize? profits but to ?beat the average.? The ultimate goal of business is not hedonic pleasure, but differential gain. In our view, this differential aspect of accumulation offers the most promising avenue for a new definition of capital.

	Like other forms of social power, the essence of accumulation is not material, but symbolic. The principal difference between capital and other forms of social power is in the level of abstraction and universality. In earlier social systems, power depended disproportionately on the frequent application of physical force and culturally-specific forms of legitimation. Under capitalism, the use of such force is usually latent and the means of legitimation increasingly universal. Through the institution of capital, power has become vendible and thus more flexible. This flexibility is attested by increasing abstraction: in the normal course of modern business, capital amounts to nothing more than bits and bytes parked in computers or speeding along the information highways.

	The literature on social power is extensive and the relationship between power and accumulation has recently attracted considerable attention from Marxist and institutional writers. However, as far as we know power has never been integrated into the definition of accumulation. If this could be done successfully, the theoretical consequences for political economy will be significant. A power-based definition of accumulation will go a long way toward clearing the logical road-blocks in existing capital theory, which will in turn contribute toward making political-economy a more theoretically coherent discipline.



--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 916-898-5321
E-Mail michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx