Is there a theory of population in Capital?

Abstract

The ambiguous position the two categories-people and population- occupy in the paper, because the paper does not share the given postulates of these two terms. “TheMachiavellianMoment” rejoices the rise of the “people’s” moment. But “The Machiavellian Moment” was possible because governments also learnt to govern people by turning them into administrative categories. Yet how were these categorizations possible? How did this double operation become possible? Once again, we have to go back to Marx to get an idea of this transformation. Yet, as indicated, Marx does not engage with these two categories independently-as if they are simply matters of rule, sovereignty, and management. What causes the division of people into fundamental categories? What remains of the notion of people then? Again, what is labour when defined as the element of production, social subsistence, and social reproduction? What do we mean when we say that a section of society is a rent-seeking aristocrat? Or, that a capitalist is an agent of capital? What causes division of workers in various categories, or categories of production units, or say the division of artisans, mill hands, the wandering band of construction labour, or the idle labour depending on social subsidies, and the employed labour? In other words, what is the dynamics of social relation that will make categorization of people into population groups possible? In raising and probing these questions, Marx’s battle with Malthus was no less acute than it was with Smith or Ricardo.