interpretation of capital was connected with the accession to the objectivity of goods
of the living labor, as a result of which the capitalist converted value-past, materialized
labor-into capital, into self-increasing value. The third interpretation was based on the
relationship between the origin of surplus value and self-expansion of capital: "Only
that worker is productive, which produces surplus value for the capitalist or serves the
self-increase of capital".
In the last decades, when the category "capital" began to receive increasingly
"expanded" interpretations, the process of finding its clear terminological definition
became even more complicated. So, if during past eras economists were content mainly
with ideas about the real, physical nature of capital, allocating monetary, productive
and commodity forms in its structure, then with the transition to the knowledge
economy, an active "complement" of existing ideas about this category began, with the
main role of the selection (from the 1960s onwards) of a special kind of it, such as
human capital, played its role.
Research result. As a result to the information mentioned above, along with the
traditional approach to capital as an economic resource that has the ability to provide
long-term income increments, interpretations have begun to develop that characterize
capital as assets that also provide incremental and other important benefits-the social,
cultural and political plan. These expansive interpretations also affected the
characteristics of capital used in economic activity. Sociologists became actively
involved in the research of this capital, firstly, they significantly expanded the notion
of the circle of forms of capital used for economic and economic purposes and,
secondly, proposed to distinguish various of its "states" .
In particular, according to P. Bourdieu, a well-known economosociologist, it is
necessary to distinguish such "states" of capital used for economic purposes as
incorporate, objectified and institutionalized. Of the three given states, the first is to
characterize capital as social relations, the second means that capital is in the traditional
embodied forms, the third is that the capital appears in any institutional forms - in the
form of property rights, certificates, etc. This approach of P. Bourdieu is expedient to
use with the characteristics of any forms of capital involved in economic activity.
At the same time V. Radaev, for example, includes economic, physical, cultural,
human, social, administrative, political and symbolic capital among such forms of
capital. It should be noted that any considered form of capital should be provided with
appropriate ownership rights to it and possess the constructive properties of capital: the
accumulation (inherent in all its constituent elements); liquidity, allowing to transform
its elements into a monetary form; reproducibility in the process of continuous
circulation of forms.
In particular, it is known that the appearance of the term "human capital" refers to
the second half of the twentieth century. Its authors are considered to be American
- 799 -