Differential Accumulation: Toward a New Political Economy of Capital

Existing theories of capital, neo-classical as well as Marxist, are anchored in the material sphere of production and consumption. This article offers a new analytical framework for capital as a crystallization of power. The relative nature of power requires accumulation to be measured in differential, not absolute, terms. For absentee owners, the main goal is not to maximize pro.ts, but rather to ‘beat the average’ and exceed the ‘normal rate of return’. The theoretical framework builds on Thorstein Veblen’s separation of industry from business and on Lewis Mumford’s dichotomy between democratic and authoritarian techniques. Extending their contributions, we argue that capital is a business, not an industrial category, a human mega-machine rather than a material artefact. Indeed, it is the social essence of capital which makes accumulation possible in the .rst place. Capital measures the present value of future business earnings, and these depend not on the productivity of industry as such, but on the ability of absentee owners strategically to limit such productivity to their own differential ends. Introducing the twin concepts of the ‘differential power of capital’ (DPK) and the rate of ‘differential accumulation’ (DA), we examine the non-linear and possibly negative link between industrial growth and accumulation in the US

Capital and Power in the Global Political Economy (YorkU, AS4291 3.0, Undergraduate)

What is capital? Is it a material thing or social relation? What is political about it and how does it relate to power? What is the role of capital in the broader international political economy? The seminar examines such questions, both theoretically and historically. The first part deals with basic conceptions of capital, emphasizing the interaction between productivity and power, and examining how this interaction affected the evolution of transnational corporations. The second part looks at the changing relationship of business enterprise and states, illustrated for example by the three-way interplay between petroleum and armament firms, superpower confrontation, and Middle-East ‘energy conflicts.’ The third part focuses on the globalization of ownership and its domestic ramifications. Particular emphasis is put on the links between capital mobility and social transformation, such as the (re)capitalization of Russia, the Asian crisis and the changing ‘Asian model’, and the dramatic U-turns from ethnic conflict to transnational liberalism in South Africa and Israel

Global Capital: Political Economy of Capitalist Power (YorkU, GS/POLS 6285 3.0, Graduate)

What is capital? Is capital the same as machines, or is it merely a financial asset? Is it material or social? Is it static or dynamic? Surprisingly, these questions have no clear answers. The form of capital, its existence as monetary wealth, is hardly in doubt. The problem is with the content, the ‘stuff’ which makes capital grow, and on this issue there is no agreement whatsoever. For example, does capital accumulate because it is ‘productive,’ or due to the ‘exploitation’ of workers? Does capital expand ‘on its own,’ or does it need non-capitalist institutions such as the state? Can capital grow by undermining production and efficiency? What exactly is being accumulated? Does the value of capital represent a tangible ‘thing,’ ‘dead labour’ or perhaps something totally different? What units should we use to measure its accumulation? Despite centuries of debate, none of these questions has a clear answer. Yet they have to have answers. The accumulation of capital is the central process of capitalism, and unless we can clarify what that means, our theories remain ‘bagel theories,’ with a big hole in the middle. The seminar examines such questions theoretically and historically. The first part explores basic conceptions of capital. It begins by studying three approaches to capital: one based on utility, a second based on labour value and a third based on power. The discussion then broadens to examine these three approaches in relation to technology, the corporation and the state. The second part of the seminar deals with transformations of capital. This part introduces the twin concepts of dominant capital and differential accumulation. Using these concepts, the seminar explores the historical processes of corporate mergers, globalization, stagflation, imperialism and the new wars of the twenty-first century. [For electronic data resources, click on the link in Alternative Locations

Political Economy: Major Themes (YorkU, GS/POLS 6272 3.0, Graduate, Fall Term, 2007-8)

At the dawn of the 21st century, more and more people realize that ‘economics’ and ‘politics’ are intimately related. And yet, these two aspects of social existence are usually studied as separate ‘disciplines,’ each with its own categories, language and theories. Can this departmentalization be overcome? Should it? And if so, how? The seminar deals with these questions by critically examining major themes of political economy. Topics are divided into two major categories: elements and aggregates. In the first part, the seminar examines the origins and implications of concepts such as supply and demand, equilibrium, utility and productivity, market organization, and the role of power. Part two, focusing on aggregates, covers the issues of national accounting, theories of prosperity and crisis, money and finance, economic policy, stagflation, welfare/warfare, and the global formations of trade, capital flows and currency regimes. Throughout the seminar, the emphasis is not only on the ‘how,’ but also on the ‘why.’ Where have the concepts and theories come from? Why have they risen to prominence and what brought them down? Who benefited from them and who paid the price? Do they help us understand the world, or do they serve to conceal it? In these explorations, special emphasis is put on methodology, as well as the importance of empirical/historical analysis

Global Capital: Political Economy of Capitalist Power (YorkU, GS/POLS 6285 3.0, Graduate)

What is capital? Is capital the same as machines, or is it merely a financial asset? Is it material or social? Is it static or dynamic? Surprisingly, these questions have no clear answers. The form of capital, its existence as monetary wealth, is hardly in doubt. The problem is with the content, the ‘stuff’ which makes capital grow, and on this issue there is no agreement whatsoever. For example, does capital accumulate because it is ‘productive,’ or due to the ‘exploitation’ of workers? Does capital expand ‘on its own,’ or does it need non-capitalist institutions such as the state? Can capital grow by undermining production and efficiency? What exactly is being accumulated? Does the value of capital represent a tangible ‘thing,’ ‘dead labour’ or perhaps something totally different? What units should we use to measure its accumulation? Despite centuries of debate, none of these questions has a clear answer. Yet they have to have answers. The accumulation of capital is the central process of capitalism, and unless we can clarify what that means, our theories remain ‘bagel theories,’ with a big hole in the middle. The seminar examines such questions theoretically and historically. The first part explores basic conceptions of capital. It begins by studying three approaches to capital: one based on utility, a second based on labour value and a third based on power. The discussion then broadens to examine these three approaches in relation to technology, the corporation and the state. The second part of the seminar deals with transformations of capital. This part introduces the twin concepts of dominant capital and differential accumulation. Using these concepts, the seminar explores the historical processes of corporate mergers, globalization, stagflation, imperialism and the new wars of the twenty-first century. [For electronic data resources, click on the link in Alternative Locations

LSE Public Event: Can Capitalists Afford Recovery? -- Video and Paper

Theorists and policymakers from all directions and of all persuasions remain obsessed with the prospect of recovery. For mainstream economists, the key question is how to bring about such a recovery. For heterodox political economists, the main issue is whether sustained growth is possible to start with. But there is a prior question that nobody seems to ask: can capitalists afford recovery in the first place? If we think of capital not as means of production but as a mode of power, we find that accumulation thrives not on growth and investment, but on unemployment and stagnation. And if accumulation depends on crisis, why should capitalists want to see a recovery? Video duration: 2:24 hour