What, do you think if I read Alan Watts that I might come to the sudden realisation that Capital is not a claim over the labour-power of others? But see, it's the kind of concept that being once understood, it's kind of hard to unlearn it. That's the trouble with reading Marx, the concept of surplus value changes how you view the world.
Actually I've listened to a lot of Alan Watt's talks on youtube, and I'm still capable of reading Marx and making the realisation that Capital is a claim over the labour-power or the labour potential of others.
'capital is not a thing, but rather a definite social production relation, belonging to a definite historical formation of society, which is manifested in a thing and lends this thing a specific social character. Capital is not the sum of the material and produced means of production. Capital is rather the means of production transformed into capital, which in themselves are no more capital than gold or silver in itself is money. It is the means of production monopolised by a certain section of society, confronting living labour-power as products and working conditions rendered independent of this very labour-power, which are personified through this antithesis in capital. It is not merely the products of labourers turned into independent powers, products as rulers and buyers of their producers, but rather also the social forces of their labour and socialised form of this labour, which confront the labourers as properties of their products.'
