“Money is a bridge between present and future.” - Keynes in The General Theory.
The bourgeoisie is
“at home” with the reality of capitalism. It does not experience its
“alienation” the way the workers experience it (Marx, Paris Manuscripts). Because of this, the bourgeoisie is not particularly
interested in “the nature and causes” of its “wealth”, the accumulation of
capital, for fear of what it may find if it dares to stare into the abyss. It
is interested only in the superficial expression of its political command over
living labour – profit – and therefore in the effectual material measure of
profit – money. But the bourgeoisie, because it does not understand the true
social essence of money, can observe only its numerical accounting form – hence
profitability is explained away as simply “making money”.
True to form, Keynes’s entire understanding of the essence of
capitalism is entirely epigrammatic - superficial, metaphorical, anecdotal and ramshackle.
Keynes never scratches below the surface of capitalist reality to understand the
essence of the wage relation and therefore of money capital. This is not to
say, however, that he did not detect some of the important adventitious epiphenomenal
manifestations of capitalist industry and enterprise – above all in the
financial sphere regarding the running of monetary and fiscal policy and in the
political sphere concerning the role of state institutions and policies in the
management of the profoundly divisive and destabilising effect of capitalism on
human society taken as a whole.
If money is a “bridge” between present and future, this is because
money-as-capital is not a “thing” but a social relation of production linking living
labour (money as a violent political claim on the living activity of workers)
and objectified labour (money as a claim to already produced goods to be used
either as wages or as means of production). Thus, money is a measure of the
present command of the capitalist over living labour and means of production in
relation to the future production by workers of objectified labour in the form
of wage goods and means of production. Profit represents the expanded ability
of the capitalist to command more living labour measured in wage goods and
means of production (objectified labour) as a result of the present investment
on these two components of production.
In effect, there is no absolute guarantee that the present
investment of money capital will yield a profit because this will depend on the
political relations between the capitalist and the worker through the process
of production (valorisation) and the eventual realisation of the value created
by living labour in the process of production through the sale of the living
labour objectified in the fresh wage goods and means of production produced in
the present cycle of production. In this schism, this hiatus (hence, “bridge”)
between present investment as valorisation in the process of production and
future realisation of the new value created by workers lies the essential
anguish of the capitalist: on one hand, the money invested by the capitalist-as
-financier or lender is seen by him as necessarily “fructiferous” or “profit-
or interest-yielding”), and on the other hand the capitalist as producer or
borrower knows only too well that there is no guarantee that the present
investment will turn into future profit!
In other words, the schismatic – almost schizophrenic – essence of
capital as “value-in-constant-motion” is reflected in the necessary functional
separation of the capitalist as “financier” or “lender” in the present and as
“borrower” or entrepreneur for the future. That is the real political reason why not “money” but
rather “money-as-capital” is, as Keynes only intuited but could not comprehend,
“a bridge between the present and the future”. It is this schism at the heart
of the social reality of capital that determines, first, the possibility of
credit (the separation between lender and borrower) and, consequently, the
possibility of “crisis”, that is, the collapse of credit, the inability of
borrowers to repay lenders.
So, the next question is: what determines the ability of borrowers
to repay lenders? And given the premises that we have outlined above in terms
of the real essence of capital and profit, the answer should be almost obvious.
What determines the ability of borrowers to repay lenders depends on the
ability of capital investments to remain “profitable”. Now, profitability is
ultimately the ability of the capitalist, as the owner of dead labour and the
potential purchaser of living labour, to command this living labour. In other
words, this ability depends on the ability of the capitalist to be able to
command ever more workers with each unit of capital. But then, this ability
depends on (a) the presence of a reserve army of living labour, of workers; and
then, (b) on the political ability of capitalists to impose on workers a certain
rate of exchange between dead and living labour.
As we have often argued on these pages, the catastrophic “financial
instability” that Hyman Minsky identified at the beginning of the 1970s was a
direct result of the inability of Western capital to expand the reserve army of
the unemployed – the supply of living labour – in the face of a cataclysmic
reduction in the populations of Western nations. And this is where Western
capitalism was finally rescued by the Chinese Dictatorship after Nixon met Mao
in the early 1970s. Almost overnight, the available workforce available to
capital almost doubled! Not only! The new deal struck with the Chinese Dictatorship
by Western capitalist meant that half of the global labour force was now ruled
by a ruthless dictatorship of truculent murderers and bandits who could
expropriate Chinese people and drive them in droves into factories to be
exploited ruthlessly!
It is easy to see why the next thirty years brought about what Ben
Bernanke called, with great acumen, “the Great Moderation”, meaning thereby the
onset of rapid global capitalist growth and profitability with virtually
insignificant rates of inflation – quite the contrary of the “stagflation”
(stagnation plus inflation) that Western capitalism had experienced in the
1960s and 1970s.
No comments:
Post a Comment