Re: AUT: Re: fictitous capital

[MIYACHI TATSUO <miyachi9@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 3/31/04 7:24 AM, "Harry M. Cleaver" <hmcleave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Mar 2004, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
>> Harry M. Cleaver wrote:
>>
>>> Paper assets are no more fictitious than paper money if they represent
>>> real assets.
>>
Whether fictitious capital is paper asset or paper money, its nature is
paper claim.

AS below

  1.What is fictitious capital? And where does it come from? If we consider
Volume III Parts IV & V it is clear that for Marx fictitious capital is
nothing more than the paper claims, or ‘titles of ownership’,
on the
future production of value. As such, fictitious capital is made up of stocks
and shares, government securities, corporate bonds, and all such IOUs that
circulate in the financial markets.[15}


  2.There are two important points that need to be grasped:

  1.  Fictitious capital emerges with the credit system and the development
of financial markets. It has no existence outside them.

   2.  Fictitious capital stands in direct opposition to real capital and as
such stands outside the process of the expanded reproduction of real
capital.

But some problem remain. For Aufheben group, fictitious capital's movement
and real capital's movement stand in direct opposition. But, in fact, these
two kinds of capitals movements overlap each other. Real difficulty to
analyze the movements lies here. In order to analyze the overlapped
movement, I begin with Marx's analysis on credit system on chapter 25 in
capital 3.

 "I have shown earlier (Buch I, Kap. III, 3, b [English edition: Ch. III, 3,
b. -- Ed.]) how the function of money as a means of payment, and therewith a
relation of creditor and debtor between the producer and trader of
commodities, develop from the simple circulation of commodities. With the
development of commerce and of the capitalist mode of production, which
produces solely with an eye to circulation, this natural basis of the credit
system is extended, generalised, and worked out. Money serves here, by and
large, merely as a means of payment, i.e., commodities are not sold for
money, but for a written promise to pay for them at a certain date"

And secondly,

 "The other side of the credit system is connected with the development of
money-dealing, which, of course, keeps step under capitalist production with
the development of dealing in commodity. We have seen in the preceding part
(Chap. XIX) how the care of the reserve funds of businessmen, the technical
operations of receiving and disbursing money, of international payments, and
thus of the bullion trade, are concentrated in the hands of the
money-dealers. The other side of the credit system -- the management of
interest-bearing capital, or money-capital, develops alongside this
money-dealing as a special function of the money-dealers. Borrowing and
lending money becomes their particular business"

Thus, Marx recognizes role of Money-Dealing Capital (Merchant's Capital
In terms of real capital, and role of banking system, all together. If so,
how do two kinds of capitals move overlapped? Rather, why does current
international credit system dominate over real capital?

I return to chapter Money-Dealing Capital, as below

   "The development of commerce and merchant's capital gives rise everywhere
to the tendency towards production of exchange-values, increases its volume,
multiplies it, makes it cosmopolitan, and develops money into world-money".

If I transfer the term "commerce and merchant's capital to credit capital,
now  It becomes clear to the critical role of current credit system, which
 "gives rise everywhere to the tendency towards production of
exchange-values, increases its volume, multiplies it". In other words,
credit system itself produces real capital. If so, what is the product of
real capital? It is not only simple commodity, but also, "credit commodity".
This inverse results in facilitating international credit system further.

If so, what is the meaning of transferring dollar to inconvertible note?
Many debates on characteristics of dollar appeared. Dollar itself is said to
have no-value as paper-money, it was given its value by state force, etc.
But most of the debate seems to neglect nature of  credit system.
 As far as credit system develops. Its contradiction deepens.
Marx wrote;
 "it should always be borne in mind that, in the first place, money-in the
form of precious metal-remains the foundation from which the credit system,
by its very nature, can never detach itself"

SO, It is not surprising  that In Asian financial crisis, massive volume of
gold was bought. Gold remains as  world-money.

MIYACHI TATSUO

    ?     References:
    ?      The fictitious capital debate
    ?     From: Tahir Wood
    ?     Prev by Date: Major Iraqi Uprising Looming In Near Future
    ?     Next by Date: On John Percy
    ?     Previous by thread: The fictitious capital debate
    ?     Next by thread: Comments on a Jeet Heer article
    ?     Index(es):
    ?      Date
    ?     Thread
    ?     Thread context:
    ?      Redbaiting garbage on www.counterpunch.org, Louis Proyect Tue 10
Jun 2003, 16:54 GMT
    ?      <Possible follow-up(s)>

    ?     Re: Redbaiting garbage on www.counterpunch.org, Eli Stephens Tue
10 Jun 2003, 17:58 GMT
    ?      Comments on a Jeet Heer article, Louis Proyect Tue 10 Jun 2003,
15:22 GMT
    ?      The fictitious capital debate, Tahir Wood Tue 10 Jun 2003, 14:36
GMT
    ?      Re;The fictitious capital debate, MIYACHI Sat 14 Jun 2003, 10:22
GMT
    ?      Hobsbawm: After the Iraq War (June 2003), Walter Lippmann Tue 10
Jun 2003, 13:06 GMT
    ?      UK state: Northern Ireland, Michael Keaney Tue 10 Jun 2003, 12:50
GMT
    ?      <Possible follow-up(s)>

    ?     UK state: Northern Ireland, Michael Keaney Wed 11 Jun 2003, 12:42
GMT
    ?      Human Rights as Theatre re: Cuba, Walter Lippmann Tue 10 Jun
2003, 11:51 GMT
 [ Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]



     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---