Loren says
"Less visible is unpaid labor inside the capital relation itself, that is a
non-reproductive wage paid to the actually capitalist work force"
It is false. for accumulation of capital, unpaid labor is needed. it's
self-evident.Why Loren error? because he confuses cost of reproducing
labor power with value of commodity which worker produces beyond cost of
reproducing labor power.
Thus, Loren says
"one must never forget that the cost of reproducing labor power, seen from
the viewpoint of the total capital, is not made up exclusively of the
already capitalist work force".
Less visible? If so, why does current capitalist world flourish enormously?
Loren says;
"Money capitals are thrown into the production process to be valorized
(expanded) by living labor, to "vampirize" it, so to speak. Individual money
capitals must periodically valorize themselves by converting themselves into
commodities in the general M-C-M' movement, or they cease to be capital.
(This, moreover, is why Marx says that finance capital, where the movement
seems to consist merely of A-A', best expresses the mystification of
capital; in this case, money seems to engender more money without even
passing through production"
Loren confuses money capital as a form of capital in the circulation of
real capital with moneyed-capital,i.e
interest-bearing capital. as to circulate outside of circulation of real
capital.
So he speak of money capital without scruple as;
"We are saying, and will continue to say throughout, that capital is a
self-movement of value, a valorization process. And we are saying at the
same time that valorization does not exist without money, and therefore
without a credit system, a central bank and a state. There is no
valorization without the M-C-M' movement of money capitals"
This is fatal error. He completely confuses money capital as a form of
capital with moneyed capital, adding, he assumes credit system as the
condition of valorization. But credit system itself does not always
valorize.
For example, function of money as means of payment does not produce value,
and surplus value, where spontanous basis for the credit system is expanded.
Loren says;
"The circulation of fictitious values and their integration into the
movement of the valorization of the total capital M-C-M' is made possible by
the credit system and the central bank"
But Marx says;
"The formation of a fictitious capital is called capitalisation. Every
periodic income is capitalised by calculating it on the basis of the average
rate of interest, as an income which would be realised by a capital loaned
at this rate of interest. For example, if the annual income is £400 and the
rate of interest 5%, then the £100 would represent the annual interest on
£2,000, and the £2,000 is regarded as the capital-value of the legal title
of ownership on the £100 annually. For the person who buys this title of
ownership, the annual income of £100 represents indeed the interest on his
capital invested at 5%. All connection with the actual expansion process of
capital is thus completely lost, and the conception of capital as something
with automatic self-expansion properties is thereby strengthened" (Chapter29
of Capital3)
"The independent movement of the value of these titles of ownership, not
only of government bonds but also of stocks, adds weight to the illusion
that they constitute real capital alongside of the capital or claim to which
they may have title. For they become commodities, whose price has its own
characteristic movements and is established in its own way. Their
market-value is determined differently from their nominal value, without any
change in the value (even though the expansion may change) of the actual
capital"(do)
"The accumulation of loan capital consists simply in the fact that money is
precipitated as loanable money. This process is very different from an
actual transformation into capital; it is merely the accumulation of money
in a form in which it can be transformed into capital. But this accumulation
can reflect, as we have shown, events which are greatly different from
actual accumulation. As long as actual accumulation is continually
expanding, this extended accumulation of money-capital may be partly its
result, partly the result of circumstances which accompany it but are quite
different from it, and, finally, even partly the result of impediments to
actual accumulation. If for no other reason than that accumulation of loan
capital is inflated by such circumstances, which are independent of actual
accumulation but nevertheless accompany. it, there must be a continuous
plethora of money-capital in definite phases of the cycle and this plethora
must develop with the expansion of credit. And simultaneously with it, the
necessity of driving the production process beyond its capitalistic limits
must also develop: over-trade, over-production, and excessive credit. At the
same time, this must always take place in forms that call forth a
reaction"(Chapter31 of Capital3)
Thus,Marx points out that movement of fictitious capital may be both
dependent and independent of real capital movement. So Loren's argument that
"The circulation of fictitious values and their integration into the
movement of the valorization of the total capital M-C-M' is made possible by
the credit system and the central bank" is fatal error, and here he again
confuses money--capital with moneyed-capital.
Secondly, Loren confuses credit system with fictitious capital. Credit
system conditions fictitious capital, but the two are not the same.
Marx says;"analyis of the credit system and the instrument this
creates(credit money, etc), thus he dintinguishes the credit system from the
instrument this creates.
But for confusing the two, he could not analyze concrete mode of fictitious
capital movement independent of real capital circulation.
MIYACHI
