On Feb 27, 2010, at 2:47 PM, brad bauerly wrote:
> Marv wrote:
>> So then, part of what neoliberalism amounts to in my view is the
>> discovery by capital that more profit could be made by investing in
>> financial `products' than investing in production of tangible goods
>> and
>> services. In the large picture huge sums were taken out of industrial
>> production systems and moved to non-production systems. There were
>> many
>> other aspects to neoliberalism's financialization model like
>> expansion
>> through mergers and acquisitions rather than investment in new
>> production systems.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I would rather see it as capital finding new forms of social
> discipline
> through finance and companies using these methods to increase
> productivity
> and increase profits.
Indeed. Why do so many people who (evidently long, long ago) have read *Das Kapital* think that capital can " make profits by investing in financial 'products' " when profits--no matter where and in what form realized or by whom--can be derived from nothing else than surplus value, and that surplus value can be derived only from the capitalistic exploitation of productive labor?
> Neoliberalism also witnessed the arrival of new ways
> to value and new ways to divide up capital and other assets into its
> parts,
> differentiate them by risk exposure, and then trade that exposure to
> those
> who want it. Derivatives, to Bryan and Rafferty, are able to
> commensurate
> across what were prior very different forms of capital, thereby,
> enabling
> the judgement or valuation of capital in new ways. What this means is
> increased competitive pressure and heightened socialization of
> capital.
>
> Bryan and Rafferty, not sure that I completely agree, make a
> comparison
> between derivatives and the rise of the joint stock company and stock
> markets, which many saw at the time as being a drain on the real
> economy,
> mere speculation, and not productive to capital. But the history of
> the
> joint stock company, while having its share of crises, is not one of
> a drain
> on the real economy or mere speculation. It is the history of a new
> phase
> in capitalism's expansion through a new technical and institutional
> advance
> which increased the power and scope of capital, with real gains (for
> capital). They argue that derivatives mark such a further shift, with
> associated gains for capital. I do agree with their point that the
> left
> should not just dismiss it all as a speculative drain on the real
> economy,
> or as capital deciding it is no longer interested in production. To
> do so
> is to miss the changing nature of capitals social power and leads to a
> politics that, what?, seeks to return to the good old days before
> derivatives.
Shane Mage
> This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
> always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
> kindling in measures and going out in measures."
>
> Herakleitos of Ephesos
>