Hacker News Reader

Comment by haZard_OS | Hacker News Reader

The 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

View on HN

I think that Marx's definition of capital is significantly limited in comparison to what others refer to as capital. In a much more common usage, capital is not just money, but any goods and services saved for the later production of consumer goods, or to meet a specific end. For instance, factory machines, education, tools, etc. are also considered capital.

With respect to education, that limit is definitely intentional for Marx, and the same goes for other forms of so-called "human capital" like job experience and connections.

They definitely help you make money, but they don't have the special attributes that make capital so desireable--you can't sell it to turn it into another form of capital, and crucially you can't employ others to use it to make money on your behalf while capturing the surplus value of their labor.

There is (and always will be) no shortage of internet arguments over this exact concern. I will sidestep it and point to social theorist Pierre Bourdieu. Here's an explainer video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ5MdAjX4NU

Reply on news.ycombinator.com