pc2 [10]
who speak of the existence of _capital_ in classical antiquity, and of Roman or Greek capitalists. This is merely another way of saying that in Rome and Greece labor was _free_, an assertion which these gentlemen would hardly make. If we now talk of plantation-owners in America as capitalists, if they _are_ capitalists, this is due to the fact that they exist as anomolies within a world market based upon free labor. Were the term capital to be applicable to classical antiquity -- though the word does not actually occur among the ancients (but among the Greeks the word _arkhais_ is used for what the Roman's called the _principalis summa reicreditae_, the principal of a loan) -- then the nomadic hordes with their flocks on the steppes of Central Asia would be the greatest capitalists, for the original meaning of the word capital is cattle. Hence the contract of _metairie_ (crop-sharing) which is frequent in the South of France, because of capital shortage, is still sometimes called "bail de bestes a cheptel" (contract of leasing cattle). If we permit ourselves a little bad Latin, then our capitalists or _Capitales Homines_ (headmen) would be those "qui debent censum de capite" (who pay a head tax). Difficulties which do not arise in the conceptual analysis of money do arise in that of capital. Capital is essentially a _capitalist_; but at the same time production in general is _capital_, as an element in the existence of the capitalist quite distinct from him. Thus we shall later find that in the term _capital_ much is subsumed that does not apparently belong to the concept. E.g., capital is loaned. It is accumulated, etc. In all these relations it appears to be a mere object, and entirely to coincide with the matter of which it consists. However, further analysis will clarify this and other problems. (In passing, the following amusing observation: The good Adam Mueller, who takes all figurative phrases in a mystical sense, had also heard about _living capital_ in ordinary life, as opposed to _dead_ capital, and dresses up the notion theosophically. King Atheistan could have taught him a thing or two about this: "Reddam de meo propio decimas Deo tam in _Vivente Capitale_ quam in _mortuis fructuis terrae_." (I shall give a tithe of my property to God, both in living cattle and in the dead fruits of the soil.) Money always retains the same form in the same substratum, and is therefore more readily conceived as an object. But the same thing, commodity, money, etc., can represent capital or revenue, etc. Thus even the economists recognize that money is nothing tangible, but that the same thing can be subsumed now under the heading capital, now under some other and quite contrary term, and accordingly that it _is_ or _is not_ capital. It is evidently _a relation and can only be a relation of production_. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~