tags : [[Marx]] [[Capital Vol. 2]]
source : harvey_companion_2018
[Harvey’s chart for the circuits of capital](Screenshot from 2020-12-21 22-12-00.png)
Marx implies in ch. 4 that any delay in the circuit causes a greater delay in the entire individual capital. Work interruptions and strikes, therefore, can disrupt the flow of capital, including means of production to other capitals
Marx mentions that crises can arise from things outside of the class relations of capital, i.e. in circulation, that have nothing to do with the capital-labor contradiction
For Marx, capital can continue to exist so long as it valorizes value
The fact that social capital can suffer revolutions in value illustrate that value is not independent of itself, but is maintained through its movement in the circuit of capital
Harvey believes this section describes deindustrialization: capital is organized around the creation of relative surplus-value, therefore capital creates new relations through which it can destroy itself
If a reserve of money is needed to deal with uncertainties in revolutions of value (i.e. technological development), it may be better to be a money capitalist than a production capitalist
“Monopoly power allows capital to control the pace of potentially disruptive technological changes”
“Capital can integrate with noncapitalist modes of production”
When commodities from non-capitalist modes of production enter into circulation with capitalism, capitalism works to ensure that these commodities flow regularly, i.e. on the terms of capitalism
A capitalist’s supply must be greater than his demand because he valorizes because he uses that supply to create value
Marx believes that a [[society founded on the pursuit of greed]] is technically impossible, because it’s to say that capitalism as such does not exist.
Harvey says that the creation of value and the creation of debt go hand in hand, since capitalists are able to buy now and pay later. [[Austerity and debt reduction will therefore result in economic stagnation]]
Money predates capital, so [[not all capital is money]], though it may appear otherwise
The buying and selling of labor-power can also exist without capital (see: feudalism)
The essence of capital is a combination of factors
The essence of capital, we are forced to conclude, is the class relation between capital and labor in production that facilitates the systematic production and appropriation of value and surplus-value.
Harvey believes that a transition to communism would entail not only the eradication of class relations but also a reconstruction of the circuits of capital that, at the moment, support production
Harvey believes that Marx has not found a worthwhile answer to the question of what counts as productive vs. unproductive labor
time when surplus-value is actively being produced through productive consumption
the entire amount of time for the valorization of capital, which includes the amount of time capital is held in reserve
capital that is not actively being used in the production process
Marx criticizes classical political economy for believing surplus-value can be derived from the sphere of circulation just by staying in circulation longer
Value can be realized faster the less time it is in circulation, this is why capitalism is so focused on “speed-up”
See: Walmart, just-in-time production
The geographical and spatial conditions of supply of means of production therefore impose constraints on capitalist production because of the time taken to bring these means of production to the point of production where laboring takes place.
Stock and inventory management are critical in the development of capitalism, namely to keep the continuous flow of capitalist production
Chapters 4-6 in vol. 2 are mostly about the sphere of circulation, an often neglected part of analysis. Capital transforms between commodity and money forms over the course of circulation, allowing us to say things outside of commodity production strictly. These chapters explain why things like inventory management, factory managers, and transportation are important to the production of value.
The accumulation of knowledge and skill, is absorbed into capital rather than labor
The accumulation of knowledge and of skill, of the general productive forces of the social brain, is thus absorbed into capital, as opposed to labour, and hence appears as an attribute of capital, and more specifically as fixed capital, in so far as it enters into the production process as a means of production proper. Machinery appears, then, as the most adequate form of fixed capital, and fixed capital, in so far as capital’s relations with itself are concerned, appears as the most adequate form of capital as such. In another respect, however, in so far as fixed capital is condemned to an existence within the confines of a specific use-value, it does not correspond to the concept of capital, which, as value, is indifferent to every specific form, and can shed or adopt any one of them as equivalent incarnations. In this respect, as regards capital’s external relations, it is circulating capital which appears as the adequate form of capital, and not fixed capital. — Marx, the Grundrisse, as quoted by Harvey
Fixed capital is confined to its specific use-value
No theory of surplus-value can be derived from understanding just fixed and circulating capital
all constant and variable capital that is used in a single turnover period
constant capital that carries over from one turnover period to another
Fixed capital circulates in its value form, not in its physical form
Marx doesn’t seem to have a clear cut definition of fixed capital, as it can be confused with other things
The development of fixed capital implies a certain level of productivity in society, according to Marx in the Grundrisse
Harvey mentions that microcredit being extended to peasants in Mexico or India to buy sewing machines and to convert their homes into sweatshops is a way to show that fixed capital is 1. a setup phase for capitalism and 2. a way to counteract the tendency for the rate of profit to fall
Harvey believes the best way to understand fixed capital is as a relation rather than as a fixed concept
Harvey says how fixed capital is valued is tricky, and Marx offers three ways to do it:
With capitalism as exchange value becomes more important, so does exchange itself:
The more production comes to rest on exchange value, hence on exchange, the more important do the physical conditions of exchange—the means of communication and transport—become for the costs of circulation. Capital by its nature drives beyond every spatial barrier. Thus the creation of the physical conditions of exchange—of the means of communication and transport—the annihilation of space by time—becomes an extraordinary necessity for it. (Grundrisse, 523–4), as quoted by Harvey
Circulation time, the spatial and physical separation of capital itself, presents a barrier to labor productivity
Marx remarks in the Grundrisse of the “[[annihilation of space by time]]”, a tendency of capital to reduce spacial barriers and any amount of friction in the movement of capital
Harvey feels that these chapters anticipate a [[consumer economy]] to come out of capitalism (and I agree)
Harvey mentions that it’s these chapters that served as a type of inspiration for the [[input-output tables]] used in the [[central planning]] of the [[Soviet Union]] and elsewhere
[[Rosa Luxemburg]] felt that accepting the validity of the reproduction schemas Marx lays out in these chapters meant that political agitation was pointless
Does this presume that harmonious and never-ending capital accumulation is actually possible within a capitalist mode of production? Engels, in his preface, worried that the materials provided no support for political agitation, while Rosa Luxemburg thought that accepting the validity of these schemas made political struggles pointless. Or does Marx mean to show that harmonious accumulation is impossible under capitalism because market allocations could not possibly converge on the correct proportionalities? Would it then follow that a rational proportionate allocation of labor to different aspects of the division of labor would be possible only under communism?
Harvey believes that the point of these schemas is impossible to determine, and leaves a gaping hole in the study of Marx
Harvey recommends the following reading list to follow up with these:
There is an extensive literature on the reproduction schemas. Some of it requires higher-order mathematics, and the overall emphasis is upon exploring the technical aspects of the reproduction process while relaxing some of Marx’s more restrictive assumptions. The classic texts include Henryk Grossmann, The Law of Accumulation and the Breakdown of the Capitalist System: Being Also a Theory of Crises (London: Pluto, 1992); and Paul M. Sweezy, The Theory of Capitalist Development: Principles of Marxian Political Economy (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1942). For Luxemburg’s objections, see Rosa Luxemburg, The Accumulation of Capital (London: Routledge, 1951). Survey works include Meghnad Desai, Marxian Economics (Oxford: Blackwell, 1979); Michael C. Howard and John E. King, The Political Economy of Marx (London: Longman, 1975); and Shinzabur£ Koshimura, Theory of Capital Reproduction and Accumulation (Kitchener, Ontario: DPG Publishers, 1975). For those interested in a mathematically rigorous development of the argument from a Keynesian perspective, see Trigg, Marxian Reproduction Schema, cited earlier. For a sophisticated neoclassical exploration of the schemas, see Michio Morishima, Marx’s Economics: A Dual Theory of Value and Growth (London: Cambridge University Press, 1973)
Over-production is a problem in capitalism
Once we dispense with the capitalist form of reproduction, then the whole problem boils down to the fact that the magnitude of the part of fixed capital that becomes defunct and has therefore to be replaced in kind varies in successive years (here we are dealing simply with the fixed capital functioning in the production of means of consumption). If it is very large one year (if the mortality is above the average, just as with human beings), then in the following years it will certainly be so much the less. The mass of raw materials, work in progress, and ancillaries needed for the annual production of means of consumption – assuming that other circumstances remain the same – does not diminish on this account; and so the total production of the means of production would have to increase in one case, and decrease in the other. This can only be remedied by perpetual relative over-production; on the one hand a greater quantity of fixed capital is produced than is directly needed; on the other hand, and this is particularly important, a stock of raw materials etc. is produced that surpasses the immediate annual need (this is particularly true of means of subsistence). Over-production of this kind is equivalent to control by the society over the objective means of its own reproduction. Within capitalist society, however, it is an anarchic element. — Karl Marx, Capital Vol. 2, chapter 20 section 11
The central question Marx asks in chapter 17 and tries to answer afterwards is “where does the effective demand come from to pay for the surplus product?” This is the question [[Rosa Luxemburg]] and [[Keynesian economics]] tries to answer
[[Keynesian economics]] believes that everything depends on the creation of viable technology to equate the value exchanges between departments
From vol. 3:
even after the capitalist mode of production is abolished, though social production remains, the determination of value still prevails in the sense that the regulation of labour time and the distribution of social labour among the various production groups becomes more essential than ever, as well as the keeping of accounts on this
Rendering context...