[Marxism] 21st century social classes in imperialist countries, compared to 19th century social classes in England. How houses became capital.

[Anthony Boynton]

*21st century social classes in imperialist countries, compared to
19thcentury social classes in England. How houses became capital.
*



When Marx was writing Das Kapital, his model for capitalism was late
19thcentury England. He was well aware of variations of captalist
development
within Europe, and had been particular struck by the differences in the
"colonies."



21st century social classes in every country of the world have been moving
closer and closer to the model of classes in the imperialist countries: BUT
not 19th century England.



The model is late 20th century Los Angeles.



The big difference is that in 20th century LA, and in 21st century
capitalism in general, there are no separate class of landowners, whereas in
19th century England there were (either one, or two, depending on how you
count the small landowners, and the big ones.)



In LA land is a special commodity. It is the only commodity that, despite
ups and downs in the short term, ALWAYS rises in value faster than the
general rate of inflation. In 19th century England, most land could not
really be bought and sold. Landowners, mostly the aristocracy, leased it for
99 years. In fact, in the London real estate market, they still do!



The bourgeois revolution and bourgeois reforms in Europe, Asia, Africa, and
Latin America, were never as thoroughgoing as the completion of the British
revolution in the United States of America.



Land has never been nationalized, as Lenin thought it should be in a
properly capitalist country, but it was turned into a commodity which could
be bought and sold like any other.



This meant that in the United States, especially after the south was
defeated in the Civil War, and the Homestead Act was passed, landowners as a
separate social class began to disappear.



Land ownership became conflated with other social relations, and the
landowning classes became conflated with other classes. Three social classes
emerged: the big capitalist class, the petty bourgeoisie, and the working
class.



Each social class interpenetrated the other. Sounds like sex, and sometimes
was, but that does not matter.



Land owning workers have a privileged position compared to workers who do
not own land, and the same is true within the other social classes.



The reason is that land is not like any other kind of commodity. As long as
society is growing, its value continues to increase. Its value increases
because of the "law" of differential rent.



This is because land is not a commodity with a price determined like other
commodities by the socially necessary labor time required to produce land.
Even land which has never had any labor spent on it, has a price.



Ownership of land gives the owner the right to charge a rent, which is
essentially the right to charge a tax, on the piece of land. All those who
do not own land have their incomes reduced by this tax/rent, which is
transferred to the owner of the land.



Owning a piece of land which you live on exempts you from this tax, and
increases the amount of income you have available for other things: eating,
speculating in derivatives, sending you kids to college, investing in your
401 K ...buying more shoes...



A piece of land with a house on it is just improved real estate. The house
is almost incidental. The value of the piece of land depends much more on
its location in the social geography of a place (i.e. near the country club,
or near the meat packing plant) than it depends on the socially necessary
labor required to build the house. For this reason, differential rent tends
to increase as population tends to increase. (But it can decrease for the
same reason.)



A great deal of the politics of the United States, especially the western
United States, especially in the 20th century, is explained by struggles
over how the actions of the state would be used to increase (or decrease)
differential rent accruing to different groups of voters.



The so-called tax revolt was entirely about this issue.



Land is not capital in the sense that rent is not profit. But in every other
sense, it is capital. Workers who own a house, do not have to pay rent.
Their mortgage payments, after interest is paid, go back into their own
pockets. At the end of 30 years, they own the house, which throughout the
history of the United States had become more valuable in real terms
(inflation adjusted terms) than it was when they bought it.



When they sell it, they will make a profit.



In other words this is a case of M-C-M delayed over 30 years.



This is quite different than most other commodities. Try keeping a loaf of
bread for a year and then selling it. Try pampers or apples. Or how about
that 1997 Ford Explorer.



A house is capital in the 21st century political economy of the USA.



Anthony