chapter one: the circuit of money capital (109-144)
three main points:
- (113) class relation is implicit in opposition of M-C-M', to C-M-C
- (112) distinction between 'money' and 'money capital', defined with respect to the process of accumulation. so money capital can have the function of money--what makes it capital, though, is its presence in a circuit of accumulation. this implies something interesting, perhaps, about what it presupposes (115--can't have it until you have the relevant class relations)
- (133) presentation of the phases alerts us to the problem of discontinuity
chapter two: the circuit of productive capital (144-167)
(148-149): the vulgar economists, in the capitalist production process, see only the "simple production of commodities" -- 'use-values' destined for consumption.
(149): commodity vs. commodity capital (it is the latter as a moment of the circulation of capital)
(152): the insanity of the worker's position -- in the money with which his wage is paid, "the worker receives the transformed form of his own future labour or that of other workers. With one part of his past labour the capitalist gives him a draft on his own future labour."
(153): in the circuit of productive capital, money is 'evanescent' -- before, remember, it appeared as the purpose of the entire undertaking.
(154): addition to the class relation of M-C-M -- 'money' can simply outlast 'commodities' (capitalist can hoard it, put it in the bank, etc.)
(154): M-L is unlike all other exchanges, which is something unknowable to our vulgar friends
(156): capitalist does not care if his things are consumed--he cares only if they are bought (be it by wholesalers, merchants, what have you). this becomes important in considering crises.
(161): again, money vs. money capital, commodity vs. commodity capital, productive capital vs. mode of existence of mop as capital
(165): the reserve fund
chapter three: the circuit of commodity capital (167-180)
(172): again, our vulgar economists, focusing on P...P', could ignore the fact that all this was devoted to 'valorization'
(173): productive consumption and individual consumption (which it encompasses)
(175, 177, 178): key argument--this third form (the circuit of commodity capital) takes us immediately toward the social circuit, he's arguing. it twice presupposes 'c', from without. in other words, in the case of commodity capital, you require others outside the circuit who also have 'commodity capital'. however, this is not the case in 'money capital' circuit or 'productive capital' circuit.
chapter four, the three figures of the circuit (180-199)
(182): "each of these stages not only conditions the other, but at the same time excludes it..."
(183): "each delay... brings the coexistence into disarray"
(184): in sum--the particular circuits constitute simultaneous and successive moments of the overall process.
(185): the point emphasized throughout volume 1 -- looking at is this way, we see that capital is certainly not just money, but also not just a social relation. Capital is a movement, and not at all static.
(185-186): passages here to unpack about the 'independence' of value, as revealed by the circuit and experience of the individual capital.
(187): speaking of a tendency to monopoly?
(189): important--here writing about how capitalism can use means of production/labor, commodity capital, or money capital that have been acquired from other modes of production (i.e., that haven't themselves been commodified yet). the groundwork for notions of articulation is here. (see 190)
(190): but he goes one further, writing also about capital's definite tendency to transform pre-capitalist modes of production into capitalist, by drawing this production into its circulation process (how do we want to deal with this? kautsky/lenin)
(191): 'fractions of capital' -- since we're looking at the process from production to final consumption
(192): money--means of pruchase vs. means of payment (discussing 'velocity' of circulation, by means of this distinction)
(194): again, this is the earlier point -- the circuits need not be entwining circuits of capital, precisely because you don't need everything to be produced by capitalist social relations.
(196): a very Brenner-ish exposition of the social relation at capitalism's heart--"rests fundamentally on the social character of procution." denouncing the other view (the Smithian view) as "typical of the bourgeois horizon". mode of commerce is subordinate to the mode of production, in other words, whereas they see the mode of production wherever they see its mode of commerce.
(197): speaking, here, of the rising organic composition of cpaital.
(198): the demand for means of production must always be smaller in value that the commodity product of the capital. in other words, he produces more value than he took out of circulation. so is the question one of missing demand? (discuss this)
chapter 5: circulation time
(200): production time--duration of stay in the production sphere
(202-203): capitalist production exhibits a tendency to shorten as much as possible the excess of production time over working time (there will always be this excess, but the idea is to limit as much as possible)
(203): circulation time--wherein capital exists as commodity and money capital; "circulation time acts as a negative limit... on production time..."
(204): classical political economy stuck in the illusion that circulation time is productive--that it valorizes capital
(204): C-M is much more difficult than M-C, remember
(206): perishability of the commodity is a barrier to its becoming the purview of capitalist production (until you have a 'populous place' and concentration')--example of breweries and dairies
chapter 6: the costs of circulation
(208-210): those capitalists who only mediate a change in the form of value, do not produce surplus-value. they take a cut, and they help free up production time. thus wage-laborers engaged in these industries perform surplus labor for their capitalists, but this is not surplus time from the perspective of society--the capitalist will, of course, lose those two hours. [all of this needs to be discussed]
(212): important--the division of labor does not make things into surplus-value producing functions, unless the entire function being divided is already a product- or value- forming function to begin with [so the university? how do we talk about 'commodification', if this is the case?]
(214): the individual capitalist can make 'extra' profits if he keeps his 'costs of storage' down, but this is not the same thing as generating extra surplus-value from a social perspective [again, needs discussion]
(216): capital and labor-power is needed to maintain and store the commodity stock--these are expenses. (1) insofar as they arise from "time" demands, they can be thought of as circulation costs; (2) insofar as their purpose is to 'conserve' value (i.e. storage?), they do not add value but are critical all the same.
(217): stock exists in three forms:
- productive capital
- individual consumption fund
- commodity stock/commodity capital
(221): important--as capitalist production develops, scale of production is determined less by immediate demand for the product, and more by the scale of the capital at captialist' disposal and its drive for valorization... mass of capital tied up as commodity capital grows, and commodity stock grows [da da dum... foreshadowing of crisis]
(222): the commodity stock phase is scary for the capitalist--he is going to be throughly disciplined, in this stage and in general, by the pressures of competition (innovation by other capitalists is ongoing, remember)
(224-225): expense required to maintain commodity stock are merely 'deductions from social wealth'
(225): "commodity stock is not a condition of uninterrupted sale, but a consequence of the saleability of the commodities"
(225-226): crux, introducing 'transportation costs', but first a comment--"all circulation costs that arise from a change in form of the commodity cannot add any value to it." these costs will be paid for out of the surplus product.
(226-227): there can be 'productive transport', insofar as consumption requires a change of location--and, obviously, the transport that's involved within the production process [discuss--what counts, what doesn't]
chapter 7: turnover time and number of turnovers
(234): can't really see turnover from the perspective of the third circuit (C'...C'), but rather, from the perspective of the first two (M...M'), and (P...P)
(235): turnover is the name given to the circuit of capital, when it is understood not as an isolated act but as a "periodic process". it includes, of course, both the production time and circulation time of a given capital.
chapter 8: fixed capital and circulating capital
(237): the pecularity of 'fixed capital' (which is a part, but not all, of the constant capital) is that it maintains an independent use-shape in the production process (i.e., for a given period of time that is longer than one iteration of the process, itself)
(238): "as long as it continues to function," a part of its value will remain fixed in it. this is contrasted, of course, to 'fluid capital.'
(241): reminding us that 'capital' only exists with reference to social relations of production--so, too, then, the distinction between 'fixed capital' and 'circulating/fluid capital'. (presumably because the notion of 'fixity' presumes capitalist turnover)
(243): the value of 'fixed capital' has a dual existence--part of it remains attached to the original form, part of it ventures off into the commodity, eventually becoming money
(244): here the implication is about 'obstacles' to turnover/profitability, which is quite important--this is what's at stake, in other words, in this distinction: fluid capital transfers its entire value to the product, but the 'turnover' of fixed capital is interrupted (which has all sorts of consequences for the capitalist, of course).
(244-245): labor-power, with respect to this distinction, functions as 'fluid capital' (more precisely, he goes on to say, it is "the portion of the value of the productive capital that is spent" on the laborer's labor-power that is part of the fluid capital)
(246-248): here summarizing four conclusions
- characteristics of fixed and fluid capital arise from the different turnovers of the productive capital that function in production (which is another way of seeing that they transfer their value to the product, in different ways)
- turnover of the fixed components spans several turnovers of the fluid components
- the capitalist has to advance capital for the fixed capital all at once, but the value is only realized bit by bit
- elements of fluid capital are steadily renewed in kind, with every turnover; the fluid capital is not renewed until it has to be re-purchased
(251): extensive and intensive reproduction: the former, if the field of production is extended; the latter, if the means of production are made more effective.
(252): in defence of socialist planning--there is a lot of needless horizontal expansion owing to the lack of a "social plan"
(255): the average expenditure for the maintenance of a machine, etc., will go into the price of the product (not, obviously, the price of repairing for individual or freak accidents, etc.)
(257): the replacement of the 'fixed capital', of course, demands expansion/accumulation (earlier, he spoke about this coming from a reserve fund, but here he's acknowledging that you can't have the latter without the former, in a sense)
(261): the big capitalist accumulates a hoard that can be thrown into the purchase of fixed capital. this is what will become, in a sense, the credit system--when this hoard begins to function as 'capital', in the hands of other capitalist at whose disposal it is put.
chapter 9: the overall turnover of the capital advanced. turnover cycles.
(263): value turnover -- amount that comes back, each cycle
(264): speaking about the cycle of related turnovers as one of the 'material foundation' for business cycles. also noting, here, that crises precipitate large volumes of new investment [fruitful place to unpack things]
(267): credit system has the effect of speeding up consumption and production
chapter 10: theories of fixed and circulating capital, adam smith and the physiocrats [skipped]
chapter 11: theories of fixed and circulating capital, ricardo [skipped]
(304): summarizing, here, the confusion created by Adam Smith
- fixed capital and fluid capital distinction is confused with the distinction between productive and commodity capital
- circulating capital is identified with capital laid out on wages
- because of this confusion, they are unable to understand the distinction between constant and variable capital properly
- understood, incorrectly, as 'money at call' and 'money not at call', by those who look at this as bank clerks
(307): comparing the production of locomotives to the production of yarn, where in the latter capital circulates quickly and comes back, therefore, to assist the capitalist in the renewed purchase of labor-power, raw materials. in the former, not like this, so a much larger outlay of capital is required ("twelve times as much") (see also 310)
(308): definition of the working period, as contrasted to the working day
(311): at less developed stages of capitalism, production lines that require larger outlays of capital are often not pursued--they are done, instead, by the State. it is only with the credit system and the concentration of capital that this enables that these products are opened to capitalist production.
(312-313): here the example being given is the production of houses, where it is only in relatively developed capitalism that builders produce in large quantities for a market)
(314): example of the starving farmer and fat ox in India. hmm.
chapter 13: production time
(316): writing, here, about instances where all of the production time is not taken up by working time, but rather there is some time in which the product is left to be worked on by other forces (grapes in wine, agriculture, etc.)
(319): interesting reflection on the consequences of this for the worker -- where the production time does not require him, he has to find alternative sources of work (seasonal migration, etc.)
(320); this also has consequences for 'fixed capital', insofar as the disjuncture demands that it sid idle, at times.
(322): looking at forests, in particular -- the enormously small part of time taken up by working time, in this case, makes this more-or-less off-limits for capitalism (and has had, he's saying, the result of making forests completely irrational from the perspective of capitalism. can we expand this, perhaps, to say more about the environment? though it is a bit odd, because this presupposes their commodification? unpack)
(324): summary passage of the different permutations, and their consequences. worth reading through.
chapter 14: circulation time
(326): circulation time = selling time + purchasing time (see 329)
(327-328): selling time, of course, is affected by the geographical proximity of production to the market, which can be affected by technological revolutions in communication and transport
(329): introducing the 'world market' to hammer this point home--at a stretch, we could use this passage to speak about the impossibility of defining space/time outside of social relations
(330): the longer the circulation time, of course, the more the risk incurred by the capitalist that prices will fluctuate. this has the result, it's being noted, of predisposing different kinds of products to different levels of stock formation--owing to speculative considerations (see 331-332)
(333): the capitalist has some incentive to, every turnover cycle, retain some money and gradually add to his reserve fund. this has the effect of inuring him in the event of crisis.
chapter 15: effect of circulation time on the magnitude of the capital advanced [skipped]
chapter 16: the turnover of variable capital
(369): fixed capital/circulating capital distinction, once more
(371): definition of the annual rate of surplus value
(373): "it is only the capital actually operating in the labour process which creates surplus-value and to which all the laws given for surplus-value apply..."
(374, 378): the difference here, between capital A and B, is essentially one that hinges on a distinction between capital advanced vs. capital applied.
(379): summarizing, again, the problem being treated here (the value is presumably because this is something that the Ricardians had trouble with--see 373).
(381): important--here he is making the claim that the annual rate of surplus value is 'a comparison produced by the actual movement of capital itself' [need to cash this out through the examples of capital A, capital B, capital C. is he arguing that this is how it looks to the capitalists? an illusion, of sorts?]
(382): the mass of surplus value produced in ten turnover periods in the course of one year will be ten times that corresponding to one turnover period [the amount of capital being equal, it seems--cash out]
(386): important--distinction between capitalists A and capitalists B in terms of the source of the wages they pay--for the first (with turnover time of five weeks), every five weeks the source of wages paid for labor-power is produced by the working hours of the previous five weeks; this is not the case for capitalist B, who has to advance the wages without having it been renewed (here, the distinction is that the first capitalist sees the renewal of the 'form' of its value, whereas the second doesn't see this--both, of course, do see the replacement of its value in the object under production).
(388): important--considering the turnover of variable capital from the perspective of society, sees three things.
- like this point on page 386, he is stressing that the money that workers under capital A put into circulation (in purchasing wage-goods) is not only the money form of the value of their own labor-power, but it is also the money form of their own value product (i.e., things that they have produced). this is not true for capital B--here the labor is not paid for with the value they themselves have produced, until the second year onwards [a question to ask, of course, is what makes this very important, if we acknowledge that there is no 'first' turnover period when we are looking at the world as it exists--or is there?]. at a given size of production, the annual rate of surplus-value will increase as the brevity of the turnover time increases (because the absolute size of capital advanced will be reduced]
- workers in capital B, in this first year, do not supply any commodity to the market, though they take from it commodities. for communism, Marx is saying, this would not be a problem--society would simply have to decide how much of a 'wait' it can bear. for capitalism, however, where social rationality only asserts itself post festum, this is the source of major disturbances: "the money market is under pressure because large-scale advances of money capital are always needed..." [here, the question is relevant, especially once you introduce credit, of course]. he is noting also that this process puts pressure on society's productive capital, insofar as its being withdrawn without anything being put back--this causes a rise in 'effective demand:' demand rises without any increase in supply, causing an increase in price, people flock to sectors, bringing imports and whatnot where they can't increase production, expanding production where they can--this, ultimately, can cause over-suply and speculation. this has its effect on the labor market, too, bringing workers into new lines of business. "this lasts until the inevitable crash". (he is noting that turnover time can be socialyl determined, but also naturally determined, as in agriculture). an account, here, of british trade with india to cash out these points about money market credit and crisis, the key point being that, again: "what appears as a crisis on the money market in actual fact expresses anomalies in the production and reproduction process itself." [worth going through this example, to clarify everything]
- a seemingly banal point about how workers, in industries with quick turnover time, can provide an element of the variable and constant capital with the very product that they're producing (coal or clothes, are the examples here).
chapter 17: the circulation of surplus-value
(394): again, summarizing Capitalist A vs. Capitalist B
(396): the pooling of accumulated money capital through the credit system--extra money capital as no more than legal titles to future production, in this sense [a concrete way to make sense of the claim about this form of wealth's 'fictitious' nature]
(398-399): Thompson's claim, cited approvingly [I think?], regarding the fact that all the wealth constantly re-produced is much more than the accumulated money capital. [this is true, I think--but how do we make sense of wealth held in derivatives (600 trillion, at one point), or total financial assets (167 trillion), etc., which both exceed total GDP? is Marx outdated, here? or am I misunderstanding the argument about 'assets', and he's only talking about hoarded 'money capital'? the message is important all the same--capitalists cannot rest on their laurels]
(400): money supply must be enough to cope with fluctuations, and enough must be produced to cope with wear and tear
(404-407): question of where the money that pays for 'surplus-value' comes from? the final answer is that this is not a legitimate problem, in the first place. it makes no different whether the mass contains surplus-value, or not [remember, we are dealing with simple reproduction here, so the nature of the question is different from what we might think--see also 410, below]
(408): there are only two starting-points (workers and capitalists)--all other must receive money from these two, or have co-proprietary rights in this relationship (rent, interest, etc.)
(410): important--the answer to the question, still, is that, assuming simple reproduction, the capitalist class as a whole puts in the money required for circulation of the surplus-value, for the purposes of its individual consumption. in other words, workers purchase everything short of surplus-value; and other capitalists purchase that sliver [this is where Rosa Luxemburg floundered, famously]
(414): rising wages, oscillating prices--none of this makes anything but temporary differences
(415): a Botwinick like opening--abnormally high profits allow producers to pass on increased wage costs
(416): important--circuit of money is very different from circulation of money (former refers to things coming back to origins; the second just means moving from one entity to another)
(418): question of the historical precondition being a sufficient supply of precious metals [a Brenner/w-system question, maybe? not really, though--the former can accommodate this, i would think]
(419): additional money, in the case of expanded reproduction, has to be created by an increase in money
(422): Rosa Luxemburg problem--worker buying power
Chapter 18: Introduction (Part III)
(427-430): useful summary of what has been argued thus far
(434): again, re: differential turnovers, the problem is one of withdrawing commodities from the market (i.e., labor-power, means of production) without giving anything back, for a time.
(434): explicit note about the society to come (paper tokens instead of money, which would cease to exist in the sense of something that circulates)
(438): Smith misses the reproduction of 'constant' capital -- instead, he borrows from the Physiocrats the notion that 'fixed' vs. 'circulating' capital is the fundamental distinction.
(441): very important distinction between means of production, and means of consumption (something which Smith 'stumbles onto')
(444-446): two observations, re: the two departments
- even though social capital is the sum of individual capitals, the form of appearance that these components assume in the overall process of social reproduction is different (even though, just like individual capital, social capital breaks down into surplus value and 'reproduced' value)
- at the social level, we see the reproduction of not just wages and surplus value, but also the reproduction of 'constant capital', which has to provide the means of production for re-starting the production process (this is something that can be ignored in the case of the individual capital, of course)
(449): what Smith does is not problematic insofar as it is true that rent/profit/wages are portions of the total value of any commodity. the mistake he makes is to, having shown this, 'reverse' the framing of the issue and make rent/profit/wages the source of value. [i don't understand exactly what this means, but the charge is here]
(451): again, against Smith's understanding of the issue [and here, at the bottom, it does seem as if the 'reverse' understanding, however counterintuitive, is indeed Smith's--'worker adds a value equivalent to his wages]
(452): Smith misses the problem of constant capital, once you zoom out and look at the reproduction of social capital [and partly, it seems, this is because of the preceding problem]
(453): Smith's two errors, then:
- to equate the value of the annual product (total value of current year's labor plus the value of everything used to produce it) with the annual value product (total product of current year's labor) -- missing, in effect, the reproduction of constant capital (i.e., the value that simply re-appears)
- this is because he has not distinguished the two-fold character of labor -- labor that creates value, and concrete useful labor [cash out this connection]
(458): again, Smith's reversal--for him, different forms of revenue form the 'component parts' of the commodity value annually produced, where in actual fact, it is the value annually produced (split into two, for the capitalist--variable capital and surplus value [and constant capital?]) that is split into revenue. [cash this out, why no constant capital, here? and what are the stakes of this confusion?]
(461-462): for those who care, a 'socio-property relations' definition of capitalism
(465): summary of Marx's critique of Smith's reversal
chapter 20: simple reproduction
(469): C' ... C' reveals the preconditions for social reproduction (i.e., when seen from the perspective of total social capital--need to produce both means of production and means of consumption)
(470): thus, when we are analyzing this process, we will need to look seriously at 'use-values' -- it is insufficient to consider the process in the abstract
(471-472): useful summary of the terms being employed
(476): first discussion of the phenomenon of 'flowing back' -- department I recovering the variable capital through department II (once deparatment II's capitalists have received payment for consumption goods from the workers of department I)
(477): relevant to remember, of course, that no one is getting 'richer' -- these are all exchanges of equivalents
(477): in short--it matters not whether this is advanced on account of the constant value portion of what they've produced or the surplus value. the money will flow back in this way.
(478, 483-4): we have gotten the result that, in the case of simple reproduction, I (variable + surplus) = II (constant) (because we have said, already, that II (surplus) can't be used to buy means of production).
(479-481): introducing the distinction between necessary means of subsistence (IIa) and luxury means of consumption (IIb)--and what follows is the attempt to show how they can balance, if capitalists buy in the correct proportions.
(484): the relationship between workers in luxury consumption and capitalists producing necessary means of subsistence parallels the relationship between workers in department I and capitalists in department II.
(486-487): key--the famous anti-underconsumptionist passage, where the theory is decried as pure tautology. worth thinking through how this fits in the prior analysis of the effects of crisis/inflation on luxury workers.
(487-488): good summary of the preceding
(490): important--we have seen from this that variable capital actually plays an important role in monetary circulation. and because workers live hand-to-mouth, it is required that it be advanced at "definite and short" intervals, irregardless of the turnover time.
(491-492): summary of the individual transactions involved in the 'balancing act'
(492): all this reproduces the relationship between wage-laborers and capitalists as well, don't forget
(495, 496, 497): key--we see that because of the phenomenon of 'flowing back', it is the money that department I itself cast into circulation that realizes its own surplus value (i.e., if we follow the chain of transactions) [question of whether this is under particular conditions--Dept I going first--or a general rule? a general rule, it would seem. the later passages would seem to confirm that this is true for all capitalists--particularly because of the point on p. 497 that the working-class could scarcely advance the money to realize the surplus-value.]
(497): all of this will be obscured by two circumstances: the appearance of money capital, and the sub-division of surplus-value
(504, 506, 508-509): the "riddle" being resolved--how can the value product be resolved into v+s, yet two thirds of the working day be spent on producing stuff that is going to function as constant capital? well, because from the perspective of value-creation, only v+s worth of 'new' value is created--whereas from the perspective of use-values, everything is new.
(512): response to Smith--the entire value of the annual product will not be consumed only by consumers (if it's meant by this, individual consumers), but by consumers (individual capitalists as consumers, and workers) and capitalists (as capitalists--or as 'productive' consumers) seeking new means of production.
(513): definition--value product (value newly created) vs. value of the product (total value of the mass of commodities)
(516): against Smith--labor power is not capital for the worker. it is a capacity (or a simple commodity that he sells). it only becomes capital in the hand of the capitalist.
(519): one big company store, of sorts
(523): variable capital always remains in the hands of the capitalist (in one form or another), so it can't be said to be 'revenue' for anyone. the money that workers get in wages are not conversions of variable capital, but just the value of their labor-power transformed into money.
(526): hoard formation has to be a part of the capitalist reproduction process, because capitalists will need to take money out of the production process to defray the costs of fixed capital
(535): key--introducing the two sections [here it becomes confusing]--section 1 pays for fixed capital with an extra 200 pounds, while section 2 gets the reflux from Department I, from section 1's purchase (which it then makes into a hoard--saving up for the day that it is capable of paying for its fixed capital costs)
(536): three different ways in which this can work (which are then developed over the next several pages)
(540): in sum--re: fixed capital and the two sections
(542): a law--if a greater portion of fixed capital is slated to be renewed, then the portion that is en route to its demise will be proportionately less
(543): important--this all will display a tendency towards disequilibrium/crisis (in other words, if you don't assume a constant proportion is not assumed between defunct fixed capital and fixed capital--remember this is all assuming simple reproduction)
(544-545): important--once you realize that the amount of fixed capital that needs to be replaced varies from year to year (and the production of other things remaining constant) you realize, also, that the problem can only be remedied by "perpetual relative over-production."
(546-548): for those who produce gold, department I does not appear as a seller, but only as a buyer [unpack, if necessary]
(552-553): repeating the example of production branches with long turnover times--withdrawing commodities without putting commodities back (thus a 'lag' created thanks to the money market)
(554): interesting discussion of slavery and the natural economy--a short history of all time, in a sense
(559): discussing the silliness of Destutt's theory of profit
(561): reference to the division of profit between capitalists (Destutt somehow thinks this is a source of profit)
(562): we see that this form of profit is parasitic, in one obvious sense, while also being a necessary "condition of production"
(564): self-laudatory Destutt as height of "bourgeois cretinism."
No comments:
Post a Comment