Question re basics

[Ralph Johansen <michele@xxxxxxxx>]

I'd like some patient response to a query that appears to be a whopper to
me, which I've never before posed.

I'm missing some crucially essential connections, which Sweezy in some of
the things he had written some years ago, just as he stopped writing for
publication, alluded to. Maybe it's been discussed and accounted for in the
interim somewhere but I haven't seen it. I'd like to attempt to rephrase his
question and ask for clarification or a referral to the relevant literature.
It's simple enough, maybe, as a posed problem but it seems enormously
complex, even abstruse, if one were to undertake its detailed working out.
It has to do with the connection between the accumulation of capital
ascribable to the creation of surplus value on one side, and the cascading
mountainous accretion of debt instruments on the other, the whole
multi-trillion dollar financial complex. How, basically, do the two connect
in a framework consistent with what Marx wrote? I had assumed without being
able at my level of comprehension to elaborate,  that all credit
creation rests ultimately, fantastic as it might seem, on call-ins of
indebtedness to the creators of the surplus value,
the working class [of course, Sweezy called it 'surplus']. But how for one
thing does that include Schumpeter's 'creative destruction', a product of
cycles of reproduction?  How for another thing does that affect the validity
of the Marxist theory of value creation, that is, how does it preserve the
practicability of Marx's theory of surplus value? How does that work out as
a historical development question? And how in the Marxist schematics can
this be represented? I know there's an answer in there someplace.

Thanking you in advance for your kind attention,

Ralph Johansen