Concept
Capital
Power that abstracts subjects and disciplines through the valuation of expected future earnings
Ask AI about Capital“Modern capital is the power to abstract individuals, groups and perhaps most importantly of all, entire disciplines, from the traditions and communities within which they are embedded so as to introduce them into new hierarchies.”
From the Archive
“I would say that if money represents power over a piece of the center, capital represents power over the disciplines.”
“The power of money becomes the power of capital, which is the power to abstract not only individuals and groups but disciplines, which is to say knowledges, media and technologies, from the results of the abstractions those disciplines had helped to effect.”
“Their insistence that capital is power—not dependent on power, not an influence on power, not even just powerful, but a specific mode of power—means that the state cannot be conceptually separated from capital.”
“Capital is a distribution of power aimed at solving the succession problem by constraining the possibilities—no ruler can rule against capital.”
“Capital is completely dependent upon the juridical form, because that is the only way in which its property can de determined and therefore expected future earnings can be calculated—the state continues to play this traditional role, as capitalists struggle over the formulation and enforcement of the juridical form.”
“The liberal subject is the capitalized subject, who has been discounted (and participates by discounting himself) against expected future earnings.”
AI Overview
— AI-generated synthesis. The archive passages above are the primary source.Following Nitzan and Bichler's Capital as Power, the GA texts refuse the standard split between economics and politics: "capital is simply a mode of power," and its insistence "that capital is power—not dependent on power, not an influence on power, not even just powerful, but a specific mode of power—means that the state cannot be conceptually separated from capital." What distinguishes this mode is its medium. Capital works by abstraction — "the power to abstract not only individuals and groups but disciplines, which is to say knowledges, media and technologies, from the results of the abstractions those disciplines had helped to effect" — and by valuation, pricing anything whatever as an asset discounted against expected future earnings. This keeps capital distinct from power in general (the originary concept) and from money (the sign of value over a piece of the center): capital is the power that homogenizes and mobilizes human activity, converting disciplines and subjects themselves into holdings.
That valuation reaches into the subject and the succession problem alike. "The liberal subject is the capitalized subject, who has been discounted (and participates by discounting himself) against expected future earnings" — the capitalist order turns even selves into assets estimated against an imagined future. At the level of the center, "Capital is a distribution of power aimed at solving the succession problem by constraining the possibilities—no ruler can rule against capital," so that turnover at the center is disciplined by the imperative to preserve capitalization. And because assets require enforceable title, "Capital is completely dependent upon the juridical form," binding capital to the state and the juridical even as it claims market autonomy. Capital thus names the abstracting, future-oriented form deferral takes once market valuation becomes the dominant relation to the center.
Across the Corpus
How this idea is developed elsewhere in the archive, earliest to latest.
“Weber’s thesis is very amenable to the perspective of generative anthropology (GA), of the human scene with center and periphery. Weber saw work (and accumulating and investing capital) as deeply entwined with a religious framework. For GA, exchange in general, and the market system specifically, are key concerns, as is of course religion, the sacred. [2]…”
“Power, meanwhile, interferes with the way money would “like” to “present itself”: rather than a representation of the intrinsic properties of its possessor, through the medium of power we can see money as commanding a certain “portion” of the center (and hence as reducing the center to “portions”). Capital, at the very least is something that makes it…”
“The introduction of money into the system provides those engaged in market exchanges with more flexible means of establishing long-term interactions, while also ensuring the control of the central authority over this expanded process. Money is introduced as debt, debt which is ultimately owned by the central authority, whether or not finance is nominally…”
“Nitzan and Bichler seem to me unconvincing in one area—their discussion of the state. Their insistence that capital is power—not dependent on power, not an influence on power, not even just powerful, but a specific mode of power—means that the state cannot be conceptually separated from capital. Nitzan and Bichler make this case by contending that the state…”
“Everything we do or that happens to us (every event) can be part of a practice of capitalization (scenic design aimed at capturing value)—getting better at something, improving appearance, making friends, learning things, etc., can all increase our value by indicating the possibility of greater future earnings. I give some “credit” to capitalism because I…”
“Assets can be leveraged so as to acquire more assets, and so as to secure the conditions under which assets in those particular forms will be more highly valued and protected. A specific kind of state-capitalist synthesis emerges in which the state mobilizes its assets to ensure a world of assetization or to survive and flourish within limits in the world…”
“The value of anything owned, which is to say, how much money someone will pay for it, is discounted against expected future earnings. This is simple and generative formulation of Bichler and Nitzan’s _Capital as Power_. The formulation assumes that things can be owned, which means a relatively stable property regime; it assumes the quantification of value…”
“The core of generative anthropology is its insistence on providing an anthropological basis, demonstrated or hypothetical, for the Ideas that philosophy and social thought have long sought to derive from the authority of classical sources or more simply from the thinker’s own intuitions of the words. GA’s “new way of thinking” takes a less exalted idea of…”
“The human exchange system does not merely reshuffle the same elements; from the first and ever thereafter, it creates meaning by incarnating, capturing, and consuming– sacrificing , in a word–its sacred Other. All earlier models of human behavior have either been centered on this Other as though we could understand “its” intentions on the analogy of our…”
“Sometimes you may want mastery, for certain purposes—but taking intentional subjective mastery over objects as your primary descriptive discourse assumes a liberal, and we can even say capitalist, ontology—one, to refer to Bichler and Nitzan’s Capital as Power, of “capitalization.” The subject is discounted against anticipated future earnings—that’s what…”
Key Texts
Where the term is defined.
Develops the concept.
Develops the concept.
Develops the concept.
Develops the concept.
Develops the concept.
Develops the concept.