Published 25 May 2011
Why does credit arise?
Credit arises as a means of payment, loans develop for industrial capital (borrowers and lenders emerge, globally), bankers act as representatives of social capital (interest bearing capital as social capital). As credit arises from the needs of capitalism, so too do social democrat arguments about financial regulation or reform.
This chapter got us thinking about the function of workers’ collective debt and savings. The social level of saving at some point effects the total level of capital that can be lent out. Anyone got any suggestions for what to read on this? (Post links eh).
Published 25 May 2011
General points: 1) Interest is a product of a social relation, and so 2) interest bearing capital is about a relation of quantities – a ration between a principle as a given value, and itself as self valourising value.
Think Australian small business, where managers of capital (or owners of borrowed credit) have their profits defined by interest rates, as such they are compelled to intensify labour processes (see chapter 23, p505 for more on the general disciplining character of capital). In that way the most irrational form of capital comes to structure material reality. “The fetish character of capital and the representation of this capital fetish is not complete. In M-M’ we have the irrational form of capital” (p516). And later, “But if surplus value is conceived in the irrational form of interest, the limit is only quantitative, and beggars all fantasy” (p523).
The juiciest part of this chapter, I think, is in the sections on the length of production periods and the appearance of them. Marx raises the question of the “total working day” (see page 523) – social conflict determines length of working day, but there is a physical limit to the total social labour can be exploited. Here, perhaps it would be useful to think about current attacks on welfare, the NT intervention and other attempts to force people into certain forms of labour.
Published 25 May 2011
What’s the relationship of interest to productive labour? How do rates of interest become established?
Marx argues that interest lies outside the movement of industrial capital, referring us back to the original formulas outlined in volumes I and II concerning the motion of circuits. Borrowers (presuming they are active capitalists) accrue profits – “the fruit of merely functioning with capital”; and lenders accrue interest – “the fruit of property in capital” (p498). Interest-bearing capital is capital as property, as contrasted with capital as function. Historically, interest-bearing capital is seen as ready-made subordinate form of surplus value. “If the gross profit is equal to the average profit, the size of profit of enterprise is determined exclusively by the rate of interest” (p496) Transformation into money capital depends upon the presence of people to buy and valorise the means of production (p501). The proportion of the capitalist class who seek to act as money capitalists effects the value of interest at any given time.
“Interest therefore simply expresses the fact that value in general – objectified labour in its general social form – value that assumes the form of means of production in the actual production process, confronts living labour-power and is the means of appropriating unpaid labour; and it is this power in so far as it confronts the worker as the property of another”. (p503)
Bosses come to see interest rates as their wages (p504) – see more discussion on this in chapter 24 notes.
Labour-Power is bought for its inherent ability to create value. Capital is much the same, it is the “thing of its borrower”, whether or not the capitalist uses it as capital, when set in motion it has the inherent property of producing surplus value. “What he pays for in both cases is the surplus value inherently contained in the commodity of capital as a potentiality.” (p505)
The last part of the chapter makes an interesting argument about the visibility of the boss – and the social character that work assumes. Once attained a certain level of development, capitalism attains a certain motion with its particular disciplinary functions. We raised different ways of reading on this final section (see p511) – is this a simple critique of the “large landlord” present in cooperatives or/also perhaps Marx is referring to latent social relations beyond capitalism (tending towards some readings of the Grundrisse).