>rakesh quotes:
>"Following the approach of [Suzanne]deBrunhoff ...
Brunhoff makes the point, echoing Aglietta, and a point returned to by negri, bonefeld et al, that credit is also the guarantor of the future exploitation of labour.
(which makes me think of mortgages as a kind of bonded labour, though in this age of real subsumption, bureaucratically/monetarily rather than personally commanded. btw, a similar difference might also be applied to understandings of a 'return' to 19th C forms of control - from slavery replete with specific master and personal slave to workfare. --- but these are just musings for now on my part.)
ricciardi (ripe, v10), also makes the excellent point that in marx's _class struggles in France_, it is the rescheduling of debt which enables the re-assertion of bourgeois authority.
"Marx vehemently opposed the monetary reform schemes offered in the name of the revolution by the Proudhonists. It was not enough to win working class representation in the state while preserving capitalist relations of production and finance. In the credit advanced for concessions to the Provisional Government lay the 'rescheduling' of the time path for the bourgeois consolidation of power that ultimately crushed the working class and collected the debts of the haute banque." (p72)
of course, credit has its other side, but only if payments are demanded in full rather than continually rescheduled (as they seem to be in a global sense), but - a specific question - is this catastrophic for capital or just a crisis for a particular regime of capital accumulation?
angela