by Andreas Peglau

 

Download the entire text as a PDF file.

 

What is „capital“?

Marx’s three-volume work of the same name does not provide a definition of the subject referred to in the title, but rather a multitude of sometimes contradictory statements on the subject. [1]
A small selection: Capital is what becomes of a value that is ‚exploited‘ and turns into ’surplus value‘.[2] „Every new capital enters the stage for the first time […] still as money, […] which is to be transformed into capital through certain processes.“[3] „Capital is money, capital is commodity.“[4] In the third volume of Capital, it then states:

„But capital is not a thing, but a specific social relation of production belonging to a specific historical social formation, which is represented by a thing. Capital is not the sum of the material and produced means of production. Capital is the means of production transformed into capital, which in themselves are as little capital as gold and silver are money in themselves. It is the means of production monopolised by a certain section of society, which have become independent of living labour and the conditions under which this labour is performed.“[5]

According to Marx, capital is therefore simultaneously surplus value, money, commodities, products and means of production. But he believes that it is nevertheless „not a thing“ – rather, it is a production relationship, and thus, in his understanding, an extremely comprehensive category that includes raw materials, means of production and human labour, as well as the processes that take place between them and the existing „conditions of activity“.[6]

Marx illustrates this confusing diversity with a wide variety of examples, classifications, economic analyses, mathematical proofs and statistics. He describes how entrepreneurs acquire, increase, allocate[7] and convert capital,[8] deals with „capital of 500 thalers“[9] as well as „capital costing 100,000 pounds[and] sterling,“[10] with advanced, interest-bearing, productive, variable, constant, fixed, dead, liquid, fictitious, circulating, social, functioning, personified, usurious, merchant, money, commodity, trade, commodity trading and money trading capital.[11]

His descriptions do not end there. He introduced an additional narrative level through which we get to know capital in a completely different way.

 

The animated monster

While capitalists and workers in Capital mostly appear as half-dead mannequins, they have a lively, powerful opponent there: „capital“ itself. Marx endows this entity with a „life story“[12] and a personality profile.

Capital comes into the world „from head to toe, from every pore, dripping with blood and filth“,[13] as „dead labour, which only comes to life like a vampire by sucking in living labour and lives all the more the more it sucks in“.[14] It „consumes labour power“,[15] begins to „work“ […], as if it had love in its body:[16] a „self-exploiting value, an animated monster“.[17] In doing so, it becomes „aware of itself as a social power“.[18]

Driven by „greed for exploitation and lust for power,“[19] it has „a single instinct for life, the instinct to exploit itself.“[20] It not only has the ability to produce „surplus value“[21] and „to conjure up money,“[22] i.e. to generate it, but also to possess „spirit“[23] and, at least in England, an „innermost secret of the soul.“[24] The „soul of capital“[25] is capable of dreaming, for example, of workhouses being set up.[26] Capital can speak, respond, agitate, formulate laws, „rant“ about taxes, wage a „campaign“, initiate a „revolt“ and celebrate „orgies“.[27]

Since the „development of productive forces“ is its „historical task,“ capital „unconsciously creates the material conditions for a higher form of production,“[28] throwing itself „with all its might and full consciousness into the production of relative surplus value.“[29] It „first subordinates labour to the technical conditions in which it finds it historically,“[30] takes „command,“[31] „management, supervision, mediation“ of production, and employs and remunerates the workers, driving them, „without being aware of it, to the most violent extension of the working day“ and creating a „coercive relationship“ that „compels the working class to perform more work“.[32]

In doing so, capital is „ruthless towards the health and lifespan of workers, where it is not forced to show consideration by society“, denies „the suffering“ of the „working generation“,[33] demands and insists on „the pleasure of having eight-year-old workers toil incessantly from 2 a.m. to 8:30 p.m.“ and „starve them!“[34]

As an „exploiter of surplus labour and labour power, it surpasses all previous production systems based on direct forced labour in terms of energy, excessiveness and effectiveness“.[35]

Not to forget that characterisation of capital in the truest sense of the word, which Marx quoted approvingly:

„‚Capital,‘ says the Quarterly Reviewer, ‚fears tumult and strife, and is of a timid nature. That is very true, but it is not the whole truth. Capital has a horror of the absence of profit, or of very small profit, as nature has of a vacuum. With adequate profit, capital becomes bold. Ten per cent is safe, and it can be employed anywhere; 20 per cent, it becomes lively; 50 per cent, positively reckless; for 100 per cent, it tramples all human laws underfoot; 300 per cent, and there is no crime it will not risk, even at the risk of the gallows. If turmoil and strife bring profit, it will encourage both.“[36]

What a brutal, creative, intelligent, highly potent monster! Marx biographer Jürgen Neffe imagines it as a „voracious, insatiable octopus condemned to eternal growth, devouring everything that comes too close to it“ and attests that the book Capital has the qualities of a horror story, as were often written in the 19th century.[37]

 

„Just“ metaphors?

There is no question that Marx did not believe that capital was a human being. When he fantasises that capital comes into the world „from head to toe, dripping with blood and filth from every pore“, this is a metaphor, a poetic image.[38]

Instead of the „actual meaning of the word“, the metaphor „conveys something else“,[39] the „actual expression is replaced by something that is supposed to be clearer, more vivid or linguistically richer“.[40] Metaphors therefore always produce an „excess“ of information, „which is both stimulating and irritating“.[41]

This stylistic device can also be used to vary, illustrate, embellish or ironise a scientifically outlined fact, enriching a text and making it more understandable and emotional.

However, this metaphorical paraphrasing must not contradict the original message. Due to their necessarily more interpretable formulations, metaphors can only be used in addition to scientific „plain language“. Where there is no „actual expression“, it cannot be replaced by poetic images.

But what is the „actual expression“ in Marx?

 

Animism?

Capital as a value that has already gained value in the capitalist production and trade process is, of course, real, for example in the form of banknotes or coins, bank accounts, real estate.

What happens when we insert this real capital into some of Marx’s quotations? A hundred-mark note recognises the „development of productive forces“ as its „historical task“. A pile of dollar coins „unconsciously creates the material conditions for a higher form of production“. A bank account throws itself „with all its might and full consciousness into the production of relative surplus value“. A property defies „the pleasure of not only making eight-year-old workers‘ children work incessantly from 2 to 8:30 in the evening, but also letting them go hungry!“

Such things work at best in cartoons for children or in animistic ideas of a fundamentally animated world[42] – which Marx in no way advocated. This substitution makes no sense.

 

Capital = capitalism?

Is the concept of capital perhaps a metaphor for the entire social order characterised by private ownership of the means of production?

In 1849, Marx wrote that capital was a „bourgeois mode of production.“ And: „The modes of production in their entirety constitute what is called the social relations, the society.“[43] Here, he expresses the strange idea that modes of production are equivalent to society as a whole. Since he quotes the latter again in the first volume of Capital,[44] he seems to have stuck to this view. [45]
However, in his view, capital seems to have been only one of several simultaneously existing relations of production and therefore could not represent capitalism as a whole. Already in the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels recognised capitalism as a necessary and, in this respect, welcome advance over earlier societies.[46] I have not found any evidence that Marx distanced himself from this assessment. I therefore consider it impossible that he wanted to equate capitalism with an evil entity across the board.

Inserting „capitalism“ into his text instead of „capital“ would also produce meaningless sentences: Capitalism recognises the „development of productive forces“ as its „historical task“ and „unconsciously creates the material conditions for a higher form of production“. Capitalism is an abstraction, a concept, but not an acting subject; it can neither recognise nor create.

 

Capitalist instead of capital?

It makes much more sense if we replace the term „capital“ in the metaphors quoted above with „capitalists“.

Capitalists actually speak, respond, agitate, formulate laws, rant about taxes, wage campaigns, initiate revolts, and celebrate orgies. They are capable of creating „the material conditions for a higher form of production“ and throwing themselves „with all their might and full consciousness into the production of relative surplus value.“ It can truthfully be said of capitalists that they subordinate labour, take over the „command“, „management, supervision and mediation“ of production, drive it „to the most violent extension of the working day“, create a „coercive relationship“ „which compels the working class to do more work“. At least most capitalists are „reckless with regard to the health and life span of the worker“ where they are „not forced by society to be considerate“; many may indeed be driven by „greed for exploitation and lust for power“.

If we take a closer look at Marx’s text, we find that these statements are essentially already contained in it. What he writes about the monster of capital, he usually formulates again in similar terms for the capitalists. There are important differences, however: here he prefers a comparatively objective and sober tone, largely refrains from moral judgement – and repeatedly excuses entrepreneurs on the grounds that, as „personifications“ of capital and driven by economic laws of necessity, they cannot do otherwise. Capitalists are portrayed as powerful in relation to workers, but not as powerful, independent and mystically exalted as the monster of capital, before which they themselves bow down.

There is also some evidence for this: according to Marx, capitalists have an „absolute drive for enrichment,“ an „indelible passion for profit,“ and feel a „lust for exploitation.“ The „production of use values or goods“ takes place „for the capitalist and under his control.“[47] He must „first take the labour power as he finds it on the market“, consume this power,[48] consume it,[49] appropriate „the labour itself as a living ferment“ by purchasing the labour power.[50] The „labour process“ is „a process between things that the capitalist has bought, between things that belong to him“.[51] The capitalist wants to generate „not only value, but also surplus value,“[52] therefore pushes for „an insatiable appetite for overtime“ and „an excessive extension of the working day.“[53] „26 companies“ have asked the British government to use „forceful intervention“ to prevent the age limit for child labour from being raised.[54] With „cynical ruthlessness and terrorist energy,“ the „manufacturers“ had broken out in „open revolt“ against the law limiting working hours to ten hours, which came into force on 1 May 1848.[55] The bourgeoisie uses „state power to ‚regulate‘ wages“ in various ways.[56]

The „command of the capitalist in the field of production“ becomes „as indispensable as the command of the general on the battlefield“. The „power of Asian and Egyptian kings“ has „passed to the capitalist in modern society“. He has „unconditional authority […] over people who are mere links in a mechanism that belongs to them“.[57] The „social production mechanism, composed of many individual workers, belongs to the capitalist,“ who „extracts unpaid labour directly from the workers“ and „fixes it in commodities.“ He succeeds both in „selling the goods produced“ and in „converting the money extracted from them back into capital,“ thereby procuring „means of exploitation and enjoyment“ for himself.[58] The wage labourers, on the other hand, find themselves in „helpless dependence on the factory as a whole, i.e. on the capitalist,“ are „under the command“ of the manufacturer, and belong to him.[59]

Marx repeatedly blurs the boundaries between capital and capitalists in his presentation. Thus, the „rate of surplus value […] is the exact expression of the degree of exploitation of labour power by capital, or of the worker by the capitalist.“ „The capitalist“ does „in detail what capital does in general in the production of relative surplus value.“ The purpose and motive of „the capitalist production process“ is „the greatest possible self-valorisation of capital, […] i.e. the greatest possible exploitation of labour power by the capitalist.“[60] „After me, the deluge!“ is

„the rallying cry of every capitalist and every capitalist nation. Capital is therefore ruthless towards the health and lifespan of the worker, where it is not forced to show consideration by society. It responds to complaints about physical and mental deterioration, premature death, and the torture of overwork with the question: Should this torment torment us, since it increases our pleasure (profit)? On the whole, however, this does not depend on the good or evil will of the individual capitalist. Free competition enforces the immanent laws of capitalist production on the individual capitalist as an external law of compulsion.“[61]

What still distinguishes the capitalist from capital, for example, is that only the latter is born into the world „dripping with blood and filth from every pore,“ a „living monster“ that „hatches“ money and „sucks“ the labour power out of the proletarians: These attributions are reminiscent of fairy tales such as the cunning, gold-spinning Rumpelstiltskin, horror stories such as Frankenstein’s monster,[62] or vampire stories, and make capitalism appear superhumanly strong and inhumanly evil.

What exactly Marx may have had in mind in telling an almost identical story twice, with different protagonists and differing attitudes, once as documentation and once as myth, is a matter of speculation. What is clear, however, is what consequences he was able to avoid by doing so.

Marx set out to prove in his book Capital that the development of social formations is a „natural historical process“ to which humans must submit. Since this is the case, individuals cannot be held responsible for social conditions:[63] Those who have no choice in their actions cannot be guilty.

Had he instead exposed the capitalists as guilty and therefore responsible for their actions, as they did have alternatives, his thesis of the inevitable socio-economic development of humanity – fundamental to him and the significance of his teachings – would have collapsed. He avoided this by inventing a superior capital monster, a scapegoat onto which he projected the transgressions, crimes, mental disorders and destructive motivations of factory owners.

This monster also functioned as a ‚deus ex machina‘: a divine being conjured up by ancient playwrights to provide a seemingly objective solution to conflicts that were objectively unsolvable, before the astonished eyes of the audience. Thomas Steinfeld notes: In Marx’s work, metaphors often serve ‚as a magic wand to bring together things that do not quite fit together‘.[64]

Since it was so important for Marx’s argument to negate individual scope and motives, it would by no means be in his spirit to replace „capital“ with „capitalist“ in the quoted formulations. This also means that if we adopt his point of view, there is no „actual expression“ for what the metaphorical capital entity stands for; this poetic image hangs in the air for him, is pure fantasy – and thus simply unsuitable for a text with scientific pretensions.

Marx labelled a hodgepodge of things that could not be reduced to a common denominator with the term „capital,“ merging things, people, processes, circumstances, relationships, calculations, the real and the unreal into a merely suggested unity. He was therefore never able to define „capital.“ His magnum opus revolves around something that does not exist at all.

Marx repeatedly used the method of personifying things to hide open questions as well as the actual human actors. „Capital“ continued to play a major role.

 

*

 

Continue reading in Part 6: Strange beings and „social laws of nature“

Download the entire text as a PDF file.

Sources of the entire text (mostly in German).

German version of part 5.

 

Notes

[1] See Lotter/ Meiners/ Treptow 2016, pp. 170–178. It is understandable that theses can change in a decades-long research process such as that underlying the three volumes of Capital. But a serious approach would require that earlier theses no longer considered accurate be recognisably revised. I have not discovered where this should be the case with regard to Marx’s descriptions of capital. I therefore consider it acceptable to refer here and elsewhere to all three volumes and sometimes to other writings that seem to me to be consistent with them. This is made more difficult by the fact that Marx often does not define terms that are important to him, nor does he even place them in clear hierarchies or relate them to one another. This, in addition to Marx’s many contradictory statements, is likely to be one of the reasons why his texts are often interpreted like the Bible.

[2] Marx 2021, p. 165.

[3] Ibid., p. 161.

[4] Ibid., p. 169.

[5] Marx 1983a, p. 822f.

[6] See also the collection of Marx quotations in Lotter/Meiners/Treptow 2016, pp. 290–297.

[7] Marx 2021, p. 324.

[8] Ibid., p. 462.

[9] Ibid., p. 323.

[10] Ibid., p. 428.

[11] See also index, ibid., p. 937.

[12] „World trade and the world market opened up the modern history of capital in the 16th century“ (ibid., p. 161).

[13] Ibid., p. 788.

[14] Ibid., p. 247.

[15] Ibid., p. 279.

[16] Ibid., p. 209. „As if it had love in its body“ is a quote from Goethe’s „Faust“, Part 1.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Marx 1983a, p. 205.

[19] Marx 2021, p. 668. Exploitation.

[20] Ibid., p. 247.

[21] Ibid., p. 321.

[22] Marx 1983a, p. 357.

[23] Marx 2021, pp. 295, 520.

[24] Ibid., p. 627.

[25] Ibid., p. 247.

[26] Ibid., p. 293.

[27] Ibid., pp. 275, 280, 304, 296, 447, 582, 300, 303, 294.

[28] Marx 1983a, p. 269.

[29] Marx 2021, p. 432.

[30] Ibid., p. 328.

[31] Ibid., pp. 328, 350.

[32] Ibid., pp. 331f., 342, 430, 328.

[33] Ibid., p. 285.

[34] Ibid., p. 304.

[35] Ibid.

[36] Ibid., p. 788, footnote 250. Author: T. J. Dunning. Encourage: to give courage. The quote proves that Marx was not alone in his personification of capital.

[37] Neffe 2017, pp. 387, 410. Steinfeld (2017, pp. 118–121) points out that Marx repeatedly depicts capital as a vampire. Perhaps Marx was also drawing on the poetic ambitions of his youth (Heinrich 2018, pp. 198–209) with these stylistic devices.

[38] Hans Hiebel (2019), who has devoted a separate book to the „metaphors of Karl Marx“ used in Capital, points out that the number of metaphors in volumes 2 and 3 is significantly reduced (ibid., pp. 8f.).

[39] Mittelstraß 2004, vol. 2, p. 867.

[40] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metapher (The German Marxist).

[41] Hänseler 2005, p. 130.

[42] On animism: Mittelstraß 2004, vol. 1, p. 117; https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animismus_(Religion).

[43] Marx 1961, p. 408.

[44] Marx 2021, p. 793, footnote 256.

[45] In 1859, he had sounded more cautious: „The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society“ (Marx 1971a, p. 8f.).

[46] There they described the class that played a decisive role in shaping capitalism as follows: „The bourgeoisie has played a most revolutionary role in history […], has destroyed all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic conditions […], has made production and consumption in all countries cosmopolitan. To the great regret of reactionaries, it has pulled the national ground from under the feet of industry. […] And as in material production, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual products of individual nations become common property […], and from the many national and local literatures, a world literature is formed. Through the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, through the infinitely facilitated communications, the bourgeoisie is dragging all nations, even the most barbarous, into civilisation“ (Marx/Engels 1972b, pp. 464, 466).

[47] Marx 2021, pp. 168 (fn. 9), 418, 192.

[48] Ibid., p. 199.

[49] Ibid., p. 616.

[50] Ibid., p. 200.

[51] Ibid.

[52] Ibid., p. 201.

[53] Ibid., p. 251.

[54] Ibid., p. 286, footnote 114.

[55] Ibid., p. 302.

[56] Ibid., p. 766.

[57] Ibid., pp. 350, 353, 377.

[58] Ibid., pp. 381, 589, 590, 595.

[59] Ibid., pp. 445, 348, 596.

[60] Ibid., pp. 232, 337, 350.

[61] Ibid., pp. 285f.

[62] Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus, in which – as in Marx’s Capital – the boundaries between the dead and the living are blurred, was published in 1818. Marx’s idea (2021, p. 425) that the capitalist is an ‚automaton‘ controlled by capital also fits into the horror genre. A human-like automaton controlled by a villain was created, for example, by E.T.A. Hoffmann in 1816 for his story The Sandman.

[63] Marx 2021, p. 16.

[64] Steinfeld 2017, p. 126.