There are not unequal exchange ;critique of Frank

[miychi <miyachi9@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Analysis of contemporary capitalism

 In the historical disputes among various Marxist parties,there have been
many problems at issue for the development of capitalism,for example, the
law of capitalist development,the agricultural problems,the theory of
imperialism etc.
 Today the development of the credit system has made a great change in the
industrial structure of the imperialistic countries and as a matter of
course the credit sytem should be clarified as a theoretical problem. In
　spite of this, the problem has not been adequately dealed with by any
revolutonary left party, to say nothing of established left parties.
 On the definite purpose for increasing the cpital acccumulation and
creating its technical basis, the bourgeois class have engaged in a shrap
controversy on transformation of the industrial structure and development of
credit system　among themselves. This transformation of the capitalist mode
of accumulation has changed the ordinary consciousness of the mass which
reflected in the ideological world. But the left parties have been far
oblivious to this.


1.What made capital commoditifying

  It is now popular among modern theorist to regard money as a symbol. As
shown in the assertion of the disintegration of the proletarian class in the
classical sense and the denying of the labor theory of value with
commoditifyning of money, the ideological dissolution of Marxism has been in
progress systematically.
 The symbol theory of money is an old theory and many studies have been made
in the field of primitive money theory. The question is why this theory has
been removed from its original field of the primitive money theory and
applied to the present economic situation.
 With the development of the credit system, capital has been so extensively
commoditifyning that it can represent itself as a commodity in general.
 The price of commoditifyning capital is determined indifferent from its
original value. Its price mechanism isn't the same as that of commodity in
general. Capital is self-increasing value and embodied abstract human
labor., but the price of commoditifyning capital can't be determined through
its content. Through amplifying this mechanism to the law of price
mechanism, the fact that the value of commodities is determined with the
amount of abstract human labor and money is generated from commodities as
such will be denied.
 In fact, the price of commoditifying capital is determined with dividing
the gross profit into interest and entrepreneur's profit, but in superficies
interest is shown as a product of the credit system which represents itself
as an illusionary communal behaviors. Consequently it is proper to explain
the price of mechanism of commoditifyning capital by the use value of money
as a symbol , that is, a mediator of illusionary communal behavior.
 Thus the money in the symbol theory, different from the primitive theory of
money ,is just an embodiment of capital, and after all it is a capital
relation that is symbolized here. However, how the capital relation is
embodied in the money can't be seen in superficies. So those who advocate
the symbol theory can't understand this context and just suppose the content
of this symbol as a communal subjectivity or communal illusion.

2.On the the study of credit theory

The symbol theorists pull ahead to understand the movement of the
commoditifyning capital through the appearances irrespective of the real
capital relation, to grasp it within the framework of the ordinary
commodity, and then to formulate it based on the law of movement as
commodity in general.
 Against such prevailing thinking many kind of Marxists, although they only
acknowledge　themselves to be so, have expressed their critical opinions.
But , in general, their contents are that the above thinking is just
modification of Marx's theory of commodity and money, and that it conceals
the exploitation of capital in the direct production process to distort the
law of the real capital movement. Thus they can't criticize it on the
clarification for commoditify of capital ,which has in original, produced
such thinking.. All with this the thinking can't be fundamentally
ctiricized, and those opinions seems to be out of date, or, as a case may
be, tend to subordinate to the Stalinist propositions.
 It is already clear that such theoretical delay in the defensive parties of
Marxism can just overcome through the radical solution of commoditifyning
capital and its movement law.
 Thus it is urgent need to study the credit theory, but the significance of
the study is not confined to this.
 The most important is that with the development of the credit system and
the generalization of commoditify of capital the mode of capital
accumulation have been transformed world-widely, and consequently the
appearence forms of crisis of capitalism have also been transformed.
 This may be in respect to the following fact; the transformation of
accumulation mode is based on the development of the credit system and
through complete reversal of the various social relations by the fetish
capital social appearance have been utterly isolated from their contents.
Thus many kinds of indices for the crisis of capitalism have been thoroughly
encoded.
 The extreme end of this study must be to decode these indices.

3.The Viewpoints of the study

　Although  we need not consider the discussion that the analysis which
Lenin made in his " Imperialism" can be directly applied today's
imperialism, there have been various opinions for the today's imperialism,
financial capital or monopoly capital. And some of them ask as follows; how
can we relate "Imperialism" with "Capital" and understand both of them
systemically?
　From this point it is the most adequate to see the content of the
financial capital as stock capital and to place it at the end of the theory
of the individual capitals which deals with the industrial, commercial, and
interest-bearing capitals, in order, and thus to make it a start for
theorizing of the financial capital or imperialism as well as for
theoretically systematization of "Capital".
 However, the present accumulation modes of financial capital are quite
different from those of at the time of Lenin or Hilferding. As generally
known, the stock capital, which is the content of the financial caital,
duplicated itself the real and fictitious capitals. The movement of the
fictitious capital, which was just a means for mobilization of the real
capital, now become the main means of accumulation of financial capital.
 The original form of the fictitious capital is a lending capital which
shows the commoditify of capital. This lending capital, of interest-bearing
capital, intervenes the reproduction process of capital from outside and
devides the surplus value(to acquire the interest), Therfore, we can call
this capital as an economy fictitious, while the real capital which is
really related to the production of the surplus value may be an economy real
 Naturally, the former cannot exist without he latter. But it is enlarging
its working realm under the new conditions of nonconvertible money system、
or world-wide domination of dollar, after the fall of the gold standard
system, and internalization of the direct production process by
multinational enterprises, and thus comes to control the economy real,
 Now, following the standpoint mentioned above, we cannot find the keys for
solution of the present situation of the specific accumulation modes of
financial capital, under which the economy fictitious formed through
commoditify of capital dominates the economy real of the industirial
capital. Although, it is required to analyze the reverse relation of the
economies real and fictitious.
 There might be no trouble if the market of commodity in general and the
financial market of the commoditifyning capital had their own working realms
each other. However, in practice the movement of the interest-bearing
capital is associated with that of commodity in general, and the latter
movement also constitutes the movement of commoditifying capital and thus it
has a twofold nature. At first it is in the financial market that we can see
the working commoditifyning capital. But in this field only the
concentration and subrogation of the interest-bearing capital are presumed
and the movement of the interest-bearing capital as that of capital in
general cannot be found in its appearance form at all.
 We must firstly distindhish the movement of the interest-bearing capitals
from that of capital in general which is hiding from the financial market.
And for this we need take notice of that twofold nature of movement of the
commodity in general.
 From the time being, we can call this commodity in twofold movement as a
credit commodity.
It is now required to clarify the principles of its movements.
  "Capital" has already clarified the principles of the movement of the
commoditifyning capital isolated from that of commodity in general as a
theory of the interest-bearing capital. However, the credit commodity
performs a twofold movement. So we cannot understand it as that of two
separate movements based on the separate principle of the commodity in
general and interest-bearing capital.
 Therefore, we must again analyze the peculiar principle of the credit
commodity. Just doing so, the reverse relation of the economies real and
fictitious can be explained theoretically.

 4. The critics for the colonialism and the credit system
 in order to clarify the principle of the credit commodity, it is necesary
to formulate its movement principle in the world market. At the early stage
of imperialism which began under the world market unified through commodity
exchange, the colonialism which stimulated world-widely theoretical
annexations was essential for the domination of the world by the financial
capital through export of capital.
 After international completion of the credit system, the world market has
upgraded from the stage of mere unification with commodity exchange to that
with the credit commodity, i.e. the movement of the commoditifyning capital.
And under this circumstance a new colonialism has come into full bloom and
the peculiarity in the development of the modes of capitalist production has
been produced in the underdeveloped countries.
 The argument on the so-called 'non-equivalent exchange' have their own
limitation as they grasp the world market just within the framework of the
commodity exchange., but it is no doubt that they are caused from
generalization of the movement of the credit commodity, diferent from that
of the simple commodity exchange.
 Therefore for those who are plundered their labor-value through credit
relations, study of credit theory shouldn't be limited to clarification of
the credit system but also aim at the world-wide transformation of
accumulation modes of capital.
 In order to see the emergent nature of this work, let's take another
example. Although each stands on the various viewpoints, it is very popular
to see the underdeveloped countries as middle-developed. It is caused from
the world-wide transformation of accumulation modes of capital through the
movement of the credit commodity. And the established Marxists schools have
been theoretically encroached by these argument. It means that those schools
have been captured with bourgeois ideologies and have accepted the
chavinism. Therefore it is quite necessary to start a theoretical struggle
against these ideological streams.
MIYACHI TATSUO
Psychiatric Department
Komaki municipal hosipital
1-20.JOHBUHSHI
KOMAKI CITY
AICHI PREF.
486-0044
TEL:0568-76-4131
FAX 0568-76-4145
miyachi9@xxxxxxxxxx