From: Howard Engelskirchen (howarde@TWCNY.RR.COM)
Date: Thu Feb 08 2007 - 15:58:49 EST
I wonder if others would be interested in elaborating, glossing or correcting the interpretation I offer below of a passage from the Grundrisse. The passage is at 378 of v. 28, 362 of v. 42 and 449 of the Penguin edition. This comes toward the end of the first part, Reproduction and Accumulation of Capital, of Section Two, Circulation Process of Capital. Marx has just explained the three forms of capital as money -- measure of value, means of circulation and money as independent value. This last is money as self-relating value, ie capital and interest, and constitutes the transition from capital in general to particular capitals, the real capitals. The meaning here is that as real capital, capital must be two so the analysis will have to be different. First he interrupts to distinguish capital in general as an abstraction and as a real existence. In the course of explaining the real existence of capital in general, he writes: "Therefore, if e.g. it is a law of capital in general that, in order to valorise itself, it must posit itself doubly, and must be valorised in this dual form, then e.g. the capital of a particular nation which represents capital par excellence in opposition to another, must be loaned to a third nation in order to valorise itself. This double-positing, this relating itself to itself as something alien, becomes damn real in this case." The "in opposition to another" I take to be completely general, ie it could as easily read, "in opposition to others". The point about capital being necessarily two is very important. How does the "third" get introduced? I take it this reflects an intersection of the analysis of v. 1, section 3(C), The General Form of Value and e.g. ch. 21 of v. 3, Interest Bearing Capital. In other words, just as a commodity can only express its value in the body of another commodity, money as capital can only express its measure as self-relating value as against another capital. Thus if one nation is to serve as the representative of capital par excellence, it must -- like the general form of value -- express its self-relating nature as capital to other nations in the form of an actual loan to a third. I'm interested in how others understand this passage. But also, what does this have to do with contemporary international economic relations, e.g. the $2 billion dollars a day the rest of the world loans the U.S.? Howard
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 28 2007 - 00:00:08 EST