Italian Critics of Capitalism by Cedroni Lorella; Bobbio Norberto; Einaudi Luigi

Author:Cedroni, Lorella; Bobbio, Norberto; Einaudi, Luigi
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Lexington Books
Published: 2010-11-20T16:00:00+00:00

What Gide forgets to tell us is who or what authorises us to acknowledge beyond all doubt that Capital is “one of the necessary factors of production.” The fact that he himself has doubts in this regard, and speaks of incest and meaninglessness, should invite greater caution, when, on the basis of a given, he attempts to recount an economic fact of enormous importance, namely that no wealth has ever been produced in the absence of previous wealth (understood, moreover, as Capital).

My own view is quite simply that Labor and Nature are sufficient factors for the production of wealth, with no need for any other form of pre-existent wealth. Indeed, my impression is that, by omitting mention of the fact that Capital is Wealth conceived of according to a certain aspect—a fact which he had already stated was widely known—, Gide has rather inelegantly skirted the problem. Capital-as-aspect is precisely what we are interested in, thus preexistent wealth is not necessary for the production of other wealth, and Capital does not necessarily figure among the factors of production. It is neither a thing nor a force. To all appearances, the hands of man, and Nature, who surrendered herself to Man, produced wealth for hundreds of thousands of years in the absence of Capital and Capitalists.

If a man goes into a virgin forest and gathers the strawberries there, he produces wealth in the form of strawberries with the sole aid of Nature and of the Labor of gathering the fruit, and this takes place with no need for pre-existent wealth understood as Capital, as necessary factor of production.

Leaving aside the problem of “aspects,” attributes and economic forms, Gide once more identifies wealth with Capital—the thing with its economic aspect. Only the latter should be of interest to the economist. Capital is not a thing. It is immaterial. To be more precise, rather than “wealth according to a certain aspect” it is the economic aspect of wealth in certain specific circumstances, namely when entering a production and distribution cycle of the mercantile kind.17

Capital was born with the mercantile economy, based on the marketplace. If we consider the period that takes us from feudalism on, to the time of the Golden Horde,18 we see that History and ethnography provide no trace of either Capital or the normal effects of Capital. If Capital were truly a necessary factor of production, it would have been present throughout eternity, and would have left us with traces of its existence. These traces are not to be found. However, by considering many extremely important social manifestations, we can historically document how Capital arose as a result of the advent of the marketplace. It is sufficient for us to note that where there is no Capital there is no bank lending, and thus indirectly conclude that Capital did not contribute to social development over the period of feudalism.

If Gide takes Labor and Nature to be forms of pre-existent wealth, then his postulate that “no Wealth could be created without the aid of another preexistent wealth” is true.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.