Theories of Finance In Marx's Systematic Theory (original) (raw)
Related papers
Palgrave Studies in the History of Economic Thought, 2020
Marx and Financialisation "with the stroke of an enchanter's wand, it (the public debt) endows barren money with the power of breeding and thus turns it into capital, without the necessity of its exposing itself to the troubles and risks inseparable from its employment in industry or even in usury. … the national debt has given rise to joint-stock companies, to dealings in negotiable effects of all kinds, and to agiotage, in a word to stock-exchange gambling and the modern bankocracy."
Marx’s Monetary Theory of Value, Fictitious Capital  and Finance
Marx developed in Capital a monetary theory of value and capital, in radical critique of the Ricardian labor theory of value (and of all later developed versions of bourgeois economic theory). Marx’s theory deciphers the decisive role of finance, as a regulatory mechanism immanent in the capitalist production and reproduction process, and constitutes therefore an indispensable theoretical tool for gaining an insight into contemporary capitalist economies and their crises.
Reinventing Marx for an Age of Finance
Postmodern Culture, 2017
This essay accounts for the production of specifically financial products such as hedges, focusing on how and why their liquidity adds value through a critical re-reading of Marx's account of relative surplus value in the production of commodities. It then considers the political implications of its restatement of Marx's view of capitalism, arguing that a political price should be exacted for rolling over the option of historical justice in the sense of sudden disaccumulation by issuing a government-backed liquidity guarantee (or "put"). Although economists have calculated the price of a systemic liquidity put as a liability of government-which becomes very high at moments like 2008-they do not take into account forms of political action that increase uncertainty about whether government will provide the guarantee, and in what form, if any, it will demand to be repaid. The essay seeks to pose this last, ultimately political, question about the financialization of capitalism. This essay is a response to the perceived inaccessibility of capitalism as an object of organized political action now that it has passed out of its specifically industrialized phase as a development of national economies, and into an era of globalized finance. In some ways, despair about the possibility of a transformative anti-capitalist politics is nothing new, going back to the representations in nineteenth century fiction of the dispersion of capitalist power from the factory floor to all spheres of life. But today, the dissemination of ubiquitous information technologies, coupled with the notion that "There Is No Alternative" (TINA) to harnessing them to the engines of finance, has led to a decoupling of the critique of capitalism as such from political strategies directed at the nation state-and to a consequent disillusionment with politics. My assumption is that there is no possibility of going back to a pre-financialized world of capitalism, whenever that might have been, so that we can, then, more effectively oppose it. Rather, I argue that capitalist accumulation has always required the creation of liquidity alongside the production of value, and that a political path forward can be found via a radical
Finance Capital and Financialization: A Comparative Reading of Marx and Hilferding
Oeconomia, 2020
https://journals.openedition.org/oeconomia/9122 The paper compares the definitions of the concept of finance capital in the work of Karl Marx and Rudolf Hilferding. While Marx outlines a definition of finance capital as the separation and monopolization of capital-money transactions, Hilferding refers to the merger of banking and industry and the domination of the latter by the former. In spite of their differences, both definitions are based on an analysis of the relationship between the credit system and production. Through an examination of the similarities and differences between the two authors, the paper argues that while Marx’s ambition was to propose a general theory of finance capital, Hilferding constructed a theory of the financialization of capitalism.
Texto para Discussão, 2022
Marx left the manuscripts for Capital, v. 3, and in particular the section on the credit system, in an underdeveloped stage. This paper carries forth the conceptual development initiated by Marx, focusing on the categories of money-dealing capital (MDC) and interest-bearing capital (IBC). It contributes to the literature in four ways. First, it demonstrates that Marx's conceptual framework not only is consistent with the fact that transactions in capitalist economies are usually mediated by bank-issued credit money, but also explains why credit money tends to displace commodity money from circulation as capitalism evolves. Second, it shows that, when fully developed, Marx's category of MDC allows for a rigorous understanding of the differences between banks and non-bank financial intermediaries. Marx introduced the category of MDC in the fourth chapter of his manuscript, that is, before the introduction of the credit system and IBC. However, the emergence of IBC introduces a distinction between the circulation of money as money and the circulation of money as capital, which in turn imposes the need to differentiate the MDCs that deal with the circulation of money as money from the MDCs which deal with the circulation of money as capital. As this paper shows, the internal differentiation of MDC establishes the conceptual foundations for the structural distinction between banks and non-bank financial intermediaries, uncovering the reasons why the latter tend to become increasingly important as capitalism evolves. Third, the paper demonstrates that, in Marx's conceptual framework, the net incomes of banks and non-bank financial intermediaries must take the form of profits, not that of interest. Building on this result, it contends that Marx's category of IBC does not refer exclusively to financial institutions; for, once the credit system has been introduced, every capital takes on the form of IBC. Using stylized balance sheets to describe the processes of credit money creation, circulation and accumulation, the paper identifies when and why capital's net income takes the form of profit and interest, unveiling the mechanisms through which the (socially valid) illusion that every capital bear interest is generated.
Capital's humpback bridge: 'financialisation' and the rate of turnover in Marx's economic theory
Cambridge Journal of Economics, 2015
The article aims to shed light on the role played by the 'rate of turnover' of capital in Marx's economic theory. Oddly enough, such a concept has been neglected by most of Marx's scholars and exegetes, as is demonstrated by the small number of scientific works dealing with it. Yet the rate of turnover is a key category in Marxian analysis, because it enables Marx to address the impact of the improvement in finance and other unproductive industries on the capitalist process of creation (and realisation) of surplus value. The evidence from the new philological edition of Marx and Engel's writings (MEGA 2) further strengthens this insight. The main goal of the article is threefold: first, to bridge the gap in the literature dealing with volume Two of Capital; second, to provide a re-definition of several Marxian concepts in the light of the role played by the rate of turnover of capital; third, to analyse the effect of the developments in the banking and finance industry on the turnover rate and thereby on the general rate of profit.
This paper presents Notebook B113, one of Marx's unpublished manuscripts, and suggests its importance for highlighting the monetary and financial issues which Marx was investigating after 1867. The contents of this notebook reveal a systematic effort to investigate new features of financial markets and institutions which were spreading throughout Europe during the 1860's, and which were put in sharp evidence by the events that surrounded the Overend, Gurney crisis in England, in 1866. Besides offering valuable clues with respect to Marx's method of investigation and composition, the relevance of the themes comprised in the notebook for the analysis developed in part five of Capital's volume III suggests that these manuscript excerpts and notes were part of the preparatory material for a future revision of that book, which Marx was never able to carry through.