Dear Dr. Yadav! The land monopoly on natural resources and location of real estate is the economic root of all forms of unearned income or unearned value capture; the fiat money monopoly of private banks and the public tax monopoly on labor and entrepreneurship reinforce this ancient feudal status quo, that is rentier capitalist ideology or neo-feudalism, i.e. the growing quantity of economic rent in capitalist societies is the root cause of distributive injustice and decline of productivity. It is this ‘exact’ pseudo-accounting of assets into liquidity(and vice versa) that is responsible for the current systemic crisis (and the coming greatest depression) of the financial command economy; afterwards, the territorial monopoly of the different natural resources will be divided between the sharks, the wolves and the vultures.

Zarembka, you are right, a political economy discussion requires concepts clearly defined. In this Conference the Technical Background does not use Marxian but heterodox concepts and refers to capital accumulation as (idle) financial capital accumulation, money that has been not applied in production; as said Lyn, ‘monetisation’ became a kind of “investment”. The focus of the Conference is how to change social relations (one may add “of production” here) toward real democracy and justice. I think that the Conference participants would appreciate if you could please make a commentary on the action proposed in the paper by Deniz Kellecioglu: “Elite appropriation of economics – the case for (r)evolutionary political economy”.

I am trying to encourage political economy to be clear about its concepts, not use “accumulation of capital” vaguely and meaninglessly.

I am also saying that, for Marx, “capital” does not mean more means of production as it does in mainstream economics, but rather must be related to expansion of a social relation of production.

First, the activities of everyday life are increasingly transformed into wage labour through a prolonged process. If we think about eating, then we can see how historically agriculture has been transformed from a mixture of subsistence farming and local markets to globalised capitalism or how producing a meal at home now relies both on products packaged and purchased by corporations and on cooking equipment and utensils produced by capitalist industry. But this is not a completed process, as we can see from the growth in packaged meals for home consumption or in the hospitality sector. A recent development is the evolution of ‘take-away’ meals into ‘bring here’ meals with internet orders being supplied to a home address by teams on bikes or motor cycles, transforming the previously unpaid personal effort of collection into wage labour.

Second, there is the politically driven process of privatising industries and services, including those impacting directly on personal life. Care of the elderly is an example, having moved initially from the home to public services, these have now largely been privatised with unstable debt-laden private equity playing a large role in the UK. What was once a private family matter has now become a source of capital accumulation based on wage labour.

Third, there is the opening up of new sectors for capital accumulation, such as the ‘monetisation’ of personal data gleaned from the internet, or of personal genetic material. The spread of the finance sector also creates new opportunities for accumulation, even if not directly by exploiting wage labour, as in higher education based on student loans or the move from occupational pensions as defined benefit ‘deferred wages’ to a form of investment.

What I would conclude from this is that the accumulation of capital, as a social relation rather than just quantitatively, is far from being a completed process, even in those countries in which it is furthest advanced. Indeed, its penetration into new areas seems to be essential for capitalist growth.

Very interesting, Arturo. But what do we with it if we don’t accept such as ideas as Lorenz’s about native human “aggressiveness” (if I remember him correctly)?

1.9 Historical Materialism and Psychoanalysis

In this perspective, capitalistic society cannot be considered as a completely “exogenous factor” for social alienation. In fact, as this society has not arisen apart from the intended action of the actors involved, there comes up the issue of understanding the cultural and psychological foundations of capitalistic society in their relations with its material basis.
In this regard, psychoanalysis has provided relevant contributions, which are still today largely overlooked.
In this sense, many psychoanalytic studies underscore that in many cases social relations are based, at various levels, on a fight for
power having its focus in — at real and/or symbolic level — “possessing institutions”. But, since an institution constitutes an organized whole of collective action controlling, liberating, and expanding individual action, this implies that “possessing” an institution relates to an unconscious fantasy of omnipotent control over all the relations occurring therein.
This means that, for instance, ownership in its predatory and acquisitive meaning embodies — as shown in particular by Marx and Veblen — not a person-to-goods but a person-to-person relation. According to this interpretation, the reason why, under these predatory and neurotic habits, institutions are considered like things to be owned does not rest in the circumstance that institutions are appraised as things in any meaning of the word, but in the fact that “the owner” of the institutions, in trying “to control and dominate” the social relations taking place therein, disregards all the needs and opportunities that may potentially arise from the people involved in these (frustrating and
neurotic) relations.
For instance, in discussing Marx’s theory, Freud stresses the necessity of considering not only the influence of the economic organization of society on individual psychology, but also the role of psychological factors in shaping the “materialistic aspects” of society.
As he notes,

“The communists believe that they have found the path to deliverance from our evils. According to them, man is wholly good and is well-disposed to his neighbour; but the institution of private property has corrupted his nature. The ownership of private wealth gives the individual power, and with it the temptation to ill-treat his neighbour; while the man who is excluded from possession is bound to rebel in hostility against his oppressor. If private property were abolished, all wealth held in common, and everyone allowed to share in the enjoyment of it, ill-will and hostility would disappear among men. Since everyone’s need would be satisfied, no one would have any reason to regard another as an enemy; all would willingly undertake the work that was necessary. I have no concern with any
economic criticisms of the communist system; I cannot inquire into whether the abolition of private property is expedient or advantageous [Here, there is a footnote in which Freud stresses his solidarity, also in relation to his own experience, with the situations of economic deprivation]. But I am able to recognize that the psychological premises on which the system is based are an
untenable illusion. In abolishing private property we deprive the human love of aggression of one of its instruments, certainly a strong one, though certainly not the strongest; but we have in no way altered the differences in power and
influence which are misused by aggressiveness, nor have we altered anything in its nature. Aggressiveness was not created by property. It reigned almost without limit in primitive times, when property was still very scanty.” (S.Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents, The Standard Edition, New York, Norton, 1961: 70-71).

Despite these cautious remarks, when discussing the difficulty of lessening human aggressiveness, he observes that, “At this point the ethics based on religion introduces its promises of a better afterlife. But so long as virtue is not rewarded here on earth, ethics will, I fancy, preach in vain. I too think it quite certain that a real change in the relations of human beings to possessions would be of more help in this direction than any ethical commands; but the recognition of this fact among socialists has been obscured and made useless for practical purposes by a fresh idealistic misconception of human nature.”, (S.Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents, The Standard Edition, New York, Norton, 1961: 109).

And then, he clearly points to a closer collaboration between Marxism and psychoanalysis,

“The strength of Marxism clearly lies, not in its view of history or the prophecies of the future that are based on it, but in its sagacious indication of the decisive influence which the economic circumstances of men have upon their intellectual, ethical and artistic attitudes. A number of connections and implications were thus uncovered, which had previously been almost totally overlooked. But it cannot be
assumed that economic motives are the only ones that determine the behaviour of human beings in society. The undoubted fact that different individuals, races and nations behave differently under the same economic conditions is alone enough to show that economic motives are not the sole dominating factor. It is altogether incomprehensible how psychological factors can be overlooked where what is in
question are the reactions of living human beings; for not only were these reactions concerned in establishing the economic conditions, but even under the domination of those conditions men can only bring their original impulses into play—their self-preservative instinct, their aggressiveness, their need to be loved, their drive towards obtaining pleasure and avoiding unpleasure. In an earlier
enquiry I also pointed out the important claims made by the super-ego, which represents tradition and the ideals of the past and will for a time resist the incentives of a new economic situation.”, (Freud, New Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis, The Standard Edition, New York, Norton, 1989: 220-221, original edition 1933).

Your comment clearly reminds the Conference proposal of looking for researches into how to change social relations toward real democracy and justice. I think that the Conference participants will appreciate if you could make a commentary on the action proposed in the paper by Deniz Kellecioglu: “Elite appropriation of economics – the case for (r)evolutionary political economy”.