The Nature of Capital

What is capital? Is it simply accumulated surplus profit? If so, whose surplus is it, and why is it called “surplus” at all?

Any production that creates capital is ultimately human. Machinery, technology, and robots may reduce competition between workers and shrink the role of living labour in creating surplus value. According to Marx, surplus value originates in labour: living labour creates new value beyond the value returned to the worker as wages, while the capitalist appropriates the surplus through ownership of the means of production and the resulting product. In practice, this surplus can appear through profit and other forms of income flowing to owners of capital rather than to those who perform the labour.

These are not abstract questions. They shape the world we live in.

The Scale of Extreme Wealth

Elon Musk has been reported as the first person whose estimated net worth exceeded one trillion dollars. If an ordinary worker saved one dollar every second from wages, it would take roughly 32,000 years to accumulate one trillion dollars.

A system that allows a handful of people to amass such extraordinary wealth while the majority possess little capital is difficult to reconcile with ordinary human ideas of economic proportion and fairness. Yet such concentrations of wealth are often presented as a natural and acceptable outcome of the economic system.

We need real examples to understand the reality behind this system.

Capital Must Move — And It Buys Power

Capital is fluid. It cannot comfortably remain still. It must move and grow, or risk losing its position to those who can make capital grow more effectively. That is why capital requires capable capitalists, while accumulated capital also gives its owners the ability to acquire political capacity and support the political conditions in which their capital can continue to expand.

Take Reform UK. In September 2026, two wealthy donors, Ben Delo and Christopher Harborne, each donated £36 million, totalling £72 million. Whether coordinated or not, the significance is the same: concentrated economic wealth can be converted remarkably quickly into political capacity.

The two donors still possess only two votes. But £72 million can finance staff, advertising, data, organisation, communications, campaign infrastructure, and the ability to reach millions of voters. Money does not itself cast a vote, but it can dramatically increase the capacity to compete for votes.

Or consider the United States. President Donald Trump has proposed a $5,000 “Trump Dividend” for American adults if Republicans retain control of Congress. For a wealthy person, $5,000 may be trivial. For someone struggling with rent, food, or debt, it could be enormously significant.

This does not mean that poorer voters are foolish or can simply be “bought.” It exposes something more fundamental: the same financial promise has radically different significance depending on a person’s economic circumstances.

These are not merely isolated examples. They show how economic power can acquire political capacity.

What Happens After the Slogans?

Reform UK has made anti-immigration rhetoric central to its political appeal. But suppose it came to power and successfully reduced immigration to very low levels. What then?

Wages, housing costs, ownership, public services, welfare, taxation, and inequality would not disappear. The deeper economic questions would remain.

Immigration can create genuine pressures on housing, public services, infrastructure, and particular labour markets. But immigration and the distribution of capital are not the same question. Even if immigration were reduced dramatically, workers would still sell their labour, employers would still own businesses, landlords would still own property, and capital would continue to accumulate.

If a party is backed by wealthy donors, we should therefore examine what economic policies it actually pursues once in power. Will it reduce welfare? Privatise public services? Weaken worker protections? Cut taxes on wealth or capital? Will the gap between rich and poor widen?

These questions should not be answered in advance by assuming the motives of politicians or donors. They should be answered by examining actual policies and their consequences.

If a government elected largely by working-class votes later introduces policies that make working people poorer while disproportionately increasing the wealth or economic power of large owners of capital, the contradiction becomes clear. Those whose votes brought the party to power may end up bearing the cost.

Over time, if inequality continues to widen, social pressure grows. People may begin to see that their difficulties arise not only from immigration or cultural issues, but also from deeper questions of ownership, wages, welfare, and the distribution of economic power. Political opposition and demands for structural change may then intensify.

The German Case: AfD and Energy

A related question can be asked in Germany. Parts of German industry have faced serious pressure from higher energy costs and the loss of access to the relatively cheap Russian energy on which some energy-intensive industries had depended.

At the same time, Germany has committed substantial public resources to supporting Ukraine, while the AfD has criticised German policy towards Russia, Ukraine, energy, and immigration.

Different sections of capital do not necessarily have identical interests. An energy-intensive manufacturer seeking cheaper energy may favour different policies from a renewable-energy company, a defence manufacturer, a bank, or a technology business. Capitalists can therefore compete with one another economically and support different political programmes.

The AfD, like Reform UK, also uses immigration as an important issue in mobilising mass political support. This brings us back to the same democratic problem. Owners of large concentrations of capital may possess enormous financial resources, but they are numerically a small minority. Capital alone cannot provide enough votes to win political power.

Any party seeking government needs millions of voters, and many of those votes must come from people who live primarily through wages and possess relatively little capital.

This creates a recurring relationship: capital can provide political resources, but the wider population provides electoral legitimacy. Political movements can mobilise working people around immigration and other cultural or national questions while questions of ownership, accumulation, wages, and economic power receive considerably less attention.

The Central Question

The question is not simply which party is in government or which slogan is most popular.

Nor is it necessary to assume that every capitalist, billionaire, donor, or politician is participating in some hidden conspiracy. The more important argument is structural. Wealth can become capital; capital can accumulate; accumulated capital can become concentrated; and concentrated economic power can be converted into political capacity.

A billionaire and a worker may each possess one vote, but they do not necessarily possess the same resources with which to influence the political environment surrounding that vote.

The deeper questions are therefore:

Who owns the capital?

Who creates the surplus?

Who receives it?

And how is economic power converted into political power?

Those are the questions we must ask if we want to understand the nature of capital.

Maq Masi