Fictitious capital

Last updated

Fictitious capital (German: fiktives Kapital) is a concept used by Karl Marx in his critique of political economy. It is introduced in chapter 25 of the third volume of Capital. [1] Fictitious capital contrasts with what Marx calls "real capital", which is capital actually invested in physical means of production and workers, and "money capital", which is actual funds being held. The market value of fictitious capital assets (such as stocks and securities) varies according to the expected return or yield of those assets in the future, which Marx felt was only indirectly related to the growth of real production. Effectively, fictitious capital represents "accumulated claims, legal titles, to future production" [2] and more specifically claims to the income generated by that production.

Contents

In terms of mainstream financial economics, fictitious capital is the net present value of expected future cash flows. [5] [6]

Uses of the term

Marx saw the origin of fictitious capital in the development of the credit system and the joint-stock system.

"The formation of a fictitious capital is called capitalisation." [7] It represents a claim to property rights or income. Such claims can take many forms, for example, a claim on future government tax revenue or a claim issued against a commodity that remains, as yet, unsold. The stocks, shares and bonds issued by companies and traded on stock markets are also fictitious capital.

A company may raise (non-fictitious) capital by issuing stocks, shares and bonds. This capital may then be used to generate surplus value, but once this capital is set in motion, the claims held by the owners of the share certificate, etc., are simply "marketable claims to a share in future surplus value production". The stock market "is a market for fictitious capital. It is a market for the circulation of property rights as such". [8]

Since the value of these claims does not function as capital, is merely a claim on future surplus, "the capital-value of such paper is...wholly illusory... The paper serves as title of ownership which represents this capital.

The stocks of railways, mines, navigation companies, and the like, represent actual capital, namely, the capital invested and functioning in such enterprises, or the amount of money advanced by the stockholders for the purpose of being used as capital in such enterprises...; but this capital does not exist twice, once as the capital-value of titles of ownership (stocks) on the one hand and on the other hand as the actual capital invested, or to be invested, in those enterprises." The capital "exists only in the latter form", while the stock or share "is merely a title of ownership to a corresponding portion of the surplus-value to be realised by it". [7]

The formation of fictitious capital is, for Marx, linked to the wider contradiction between the financial system in capitalism and its monetary basis. Marx writes: "With the development of interest-bearing capital and the credit system, all capital seems to double itself, and sometimes treble itself, by the various modes in which the same capital, or perhaps even the same claim on a debt, appears in different forms in different hands. The greater portion of this 'money-capital' is purely fictitious. All the deposits, with the exception of the reserve fund, are merely claims on the banker, which, however, never exist as deposits." [7] The expansion of the credit system can, in periods of capitalist expansion, be beneficial for the system; but in periods of economic crisis and uncertainty, capitalists tend, Marx argues, to look to the security of the "money-commodity" (gold) as the ultimate measure of value. Marx tends to assume the convertibility of paper money into gold. However, the modern system of inconvertible paper money, backed by the authority of states, poses greater problems. Here, in periods of crisis, "the capitalist class appears to have a choice between devaluing money or commodities, between inflation or depression. In the event that monetary policy is dedicated to avoiding both, it will merely end up incurring both". [9]

The term is also used by the economist Cédric Durand as the title of a 2017 book, Fictitious Capital: How Finance Is Appropriating Our Future. The book argues government intervention allows fictitious capital to "assume proportions incompatible with the real production potential of economies," leading inevitably to crises such as the Great Recession. [10] [11]

Speculation

Profit can be made purely from trading in a variety of financial claims existing only on paper. This is an extreme form of the fetishism of commodities in which the underlying source of surplus-value in exploitation of labour power is disguised. Indeed, profit can be made by using only borrowed capital to engage in (speculative) trade, not backed up by any tangible asset.

The price of fictitious capital is governed by a series of complex determinants. In the first instance they are governed by the "present and anticipated future incomes to which ownership entitles the holder, capitalised at the going rate of interest". [12] But fictitious capital is also the object of speculation. The market value of such assets can be driven up and artificially inflated, purely as a result of supply and demand factors which can themselves be manipulated for profit. The inflated value can just as rapidly be punctured if large amounts of capital are withdrawn. [13]

Illustrations

Banking

Marx cites the case of a Mr Chapman who testified before the British Bank Acts Committee in 1857:

"though in 1857 he was himself still a magnate on the money market, [Chapman] complained bitterly that there were several large money capitalists in London who were strong enough to bring the entire money market into disorder at a given moment and in this way fleece the smaller money dealers most shamelessly. There were supposed to be several great sharks of this kind who could significantly intensify a difficult situation by selling one or two million pounds worth of Consols and in this way taking an equivalent sum of banknotes (and thereby available loan capital) out of the market. The collaboration of three big banks in such a manoeuvre would suffice to turn a pressure into a panic." [14]

Marx added that:

"The biggest capital power in London is of course the Bank of England, but its position as a semi-state institution makes it impossible for it to assert its domination in so brutal a fashion. Nonetheless, it too is sufficiently capable of looking after itself... Inasmuch as the Bank issues notes that are not backed by the metal reserve in its vaults, it creates tokens of value that are not only means of circulation, but also forms additional - even if fictitious - capital for it, to the nominal value of these fiduciary notes, and this extra capital yields it an extra profit." [15]

Public stocks

Marx writes:

"To the extent that the depreciation or increase in value of this paper is independent of the movement of value of the actual capital that it represents, the wealth of the nation is just as great before as after its depreciation or increase in value.

"The public stocks and canal and railway shares had already by the 23rd of October, 1847, been depreciated in the aggregate to the amount of £114,752,225." (Morris, Governor of the Bank of England, testimony in the Report on Commercial Distress, 1847-48 [No. 3800].)

"Unless this depreciation reflected an actual stoppage of production and of traffic on canals and railways, or a suspension of already initiated enterprises, or squandering capital in positively worthless ventures, the nation did not grow one cent poorer by the bursting of this soap bubble of nominal money-capital." [7]

Housing and Fixed Capital

In 2024, Elliot Goodell Ugalde argued that the misalignment between housing's exchange value and its soaring market prices indicates the presence of fictitious capital and can be contextualized within the framework of Marx's Labour Theory of Value (LTOV) as explored in his analysis of Vancouver’s housing crisis. According to Goodell Ugalde, this phenomenon reflects a fundamental contradiction within capitalist systems, particularly when applied to housing as a commodity. Housing, unlike typical commodities, is tethered to land—a finite resource that resists the traditional dynamics of supply and demand economics.

In Marxist terms, the exchange value of housing, which derives from the socially necessary labor time required for its production, should theoretically dictate its price under normal market conditions. However, in speculative housing markets like Vancouver, the detachment between exchange value and market price becomes starkly evident. The perpetual increase in market prices, even for unoccupied units, reflects the formation of fictitious capital—an inflation of asset values that bears little relation to the actual productive value of the underlying commodity. This inflation is driven by speculative investments and property hoarding, practices that exploit the appreciating nature of land-linked commodities.

Goodell Ugalde’s argument is further reinforced by the observation that housing markets dominated by monopolistic or oligopolistic entities manipulate supply to sustain high market prices. The strategic withholding of properties, a practice aligned with Marx's theory of absolute rent, creates artificial scarcity that drives up rental costs irrespective of actual demand. This manipulation underscores the failure of orthodox economic frameworks, which assume that increasing supply will naturally stabilize or reduce prices.

By framing housing within Marx's critique of capitalist contradictions, Goodell Ugalde highlights the systemic issues inherent in treating housing as a commodity subject to market forces. Unlike other commodities, housing's market price often appreciates over time, incentivizing capital accumulation without the risk of overproduction crises that typically afflict other goods. This dynamic encourages speculative bubbles, further inflating prices and exacerbating the housing affordability crisis. [16]

See also

Related Research Articles

The labor theory of value (LTV) is a theory of value that argues that the exchange value of a good or service is determined by the total amount of "socially necessary labor" required to produce it. The contrasting system is typically known as the subjective theory of value.

In political economy and especially Marxian economics, exchange value refers to one of the four major attributes of a commodity, i.e., an item or service produced for, and sold on the market, the other three attributes being use value, economic value, and price. Thus, a commodity has the following:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Capital accumulation</span> Dynamic that motivates pursuit of profit, central tenet of capitalism

Capital accumulation is the dynamic that motivates the pursuit of profit, involving the investment of money or any financial asset with the goal of increasing the initial monetary value of said asset as a financial return whether in the form of profit, rent, interest, royalties or capital gains. The aim of capital accumulation is to create new fixed and working capitals, broaden and modernize the existing ones, grow the material basis of social-cultural activities, as well as constituting the necessary resource for reserve and insurance. The process of capital accumulation forms the basis of capitalism, and is one of the defining characteristics of a capitalist economic system.

Labour power is the capacity to do work, a key concept used by Karl Marx in his critique of capitalist political economy. Marx distinguished between the capacity to do work, i.e. labour power, and the physical act of working, i.e. labour. Labour power exists in any kind of society, but on what terms it is traded or combined with means of production to produce goods and services has historically varied greatly.

Simple commodity production, also translated as petty commodity production, is a term coined by Friedrich Engels in 1894 when he had compiled and edited the third volume of Marx's Capital. It refers to productive activities under the conditions of what Karl Marx had called the "simple exchange" or "simple circulation" of commodities, where independent producers trade their own products to obtain other products. The use of the adjective simple is not intended to refer to the nature of the producers or of their production, but rather to the relatively simple and straightforward exchange processes involved from an economic perspective.

In Marxism, the valorisation or valorization of capital is the increase in the value of capital assets through the application of value-forming labour in production. The German original term is "Verwertung" but this is difficult to translate. The first translation of Capital by Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling, under Engels' editorship, renders "Verwertung" in different ways depending on the context, for example as "creation of surplus-value", "self-expanding value", "increase in value" and similar expressions. These renderings were also used in the US Untermann revised edition, and the Eden and Cedar Paul translation. It has also been wrongly rendered as "realisation of capital".

The law of the value of commodities, known simply as the law of value, is a central concept in Karl Marx's critique of political economy first expounded in his polemic The Poverty of Philosophy (1847) against Pierre-Joseph Proudhon with reference to David Ricardo's economics. Most generally, it refers to a regulative principle of the economic exchange of the products of human work, namely that the relative exchange-values of those products in trade, usually expressed by money-prices, are proportional to the average amounts of human labor-time which are currently socially necessary to produce them within the capitalist mode of production.

Prices of production is a concept in Karl Marx's critique of political economy, defined as "cost-price + average profit". A production price can be thought of as a type of supply price for products; it refers to the price levels at which newly produced goods and services would have to be sold by the producers, in order to reach a normal, average profit rate on the capital invested to produce the products.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Value (economics)</span> The measure of benefit provided by a good or service in an economy

In economics, economic value is a measure of the benefit provided by a good or service to an economic agent, and value for money represents an assessment of whether financial or other resources are being used effectively in order to secure such benefit. Economic value is generally measured through units of currency, and the interpretation is therefore "what is the maximum amount of money a person is willing and able to pay for a good or service?” Value for money is often expressed in comparative terms, such as "better", or "best value for money", but may also be expressed in absolute terms, such as where a deal does, or does not, offer value for money.

<i>Das Kapital, Volume I</i> 1867 book by Karl Marx

Capital. A Critique of Political Economy. Volume I: The Process of Production of Capital is the first of three treatises that make up Das Kapital, a critique of political economy by the German philosopher and economist Karl Marx. First published on 14 September 1867, Volume I was the product of a decade of research and redrafting and is the only part of Das Kapital to be completed during Marx's life. It focuses on the aspect of capitalism that Marx refers to as the capitalist mode of production or how capitalism organises society to produce goods and services.

Differential ground rent and absolute ground rent are concepts used by Karl Marx in the third volume of Das Kapital to explain how the capitalist mode of production would operate in agricultural production, under the condition where most agricultural land was owned by a social class of land-owners who could obtain rent income from farm production. Rent as an economic category is regarded by Marx as one form of surplus value just like net interest income, net production taxes and industrial profits. Marx's main texts on rent theory can be found in the second (edited) volume of Theories of Surplus Value and in Part 6 of Capital, Volume III. Anwar M. Shaikh states that "These remarkably rich and insightful sections of his work are seldom mentioned in the Marxian literature, and are even less understood."

In classical political economy and especially Karl Marx's critique of political economy, a commodity is any good or service produced by human labour and offered as a product for general sale on the market. Some other priced goods are also treated as commodities, e.g. human labor-power, works of art and natural resources, even though they may not be produced specifically for the market, or be non-reproducible goods. This problem was extensively debated by Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Karl Rodbertus-Jagetzow, among others. Value and price are not equivalent terms in economics, and theorising the specific relationship of value to market price has been a challenge for both liberal and Marxist economists.

The value-form or form of value is an important concept in Karl Marx's critique of political economy, discussed in the first chapter of Capital, Volume 1. It refers to the social forms of tradeable things as symbols of value, which contrast with their physical features, as objects which can satisfy human needs or serve a useful purpose. The physical appearance or the price tag of a traded object may be directly observable, but the meaning of its social form is not.

Criticisms of the labor theory of value affect the historical concept of labor theory of value (LTV) which spans classical economics, liberal economics, Marxian economics, neo-Marxian economics, and anarchist economics. As an economic theory of value, LTV is widely attributed to Marx and Marxian economics despite Marx himself pointing out the contradictions of the theory, because Marx drew ideas from LTV and related them to the concepts of labour exploitation and surplus value; the theory itself was developed by Adam Smith and David Ricardo. LTV criticisms therefore often appear in the context of economic criticism, not only for the microeconomic theory of Marx but also for Marxism, according to which the working class is exploited under capitalism, while little to no focus is placed on those responsible for developing the theory.

Overaccumulation is one of the potential causes of the crisis of capital accumulation. In crisis theory, a crisis of capital occurs due to what Karl Marx refers to as the internal contradictions inherent in the capitalist system which result in the reconfiguration of production. The contradiction in this situation is realized because of the condition of capitalism that requires the accumulation of capital through the continual reinvestment of surplus value.

Constant capital, is a concept created by Karl Marx and used in Marxian political economy. It refers to one of the forms of capital invested in production, which contrasts with variable capital. The distinction between constant and variable refers to an aspect of the economic role of factors of production in creating a new value.

In Karl Marx's critique of political economy and subsequent Marxian analyses, the capitalist mode of production refers to the systems of organizing production and distribution within capitalist societies. Private money-making in various forms preceded the development of the capitalist mode of production as such. The capitalist mode of production proper, based on wage-labour and private ownership of the means of production and on industrial technology, began to grow rapidly in Western Europe from the Industrial Revolution, later extending to most of the world.

In Marxian economics, surplus value is the difference between the amount raised through a sale of a product and the amount it cost to manufacture it: i.e. the amount raised through sale of the product minus the cost of the materials, plant and labour power. The concept originated in Ricardian socialism, with the term "surplus value" itself being coined by William Thompson in 1824; however, it was not consistently distinguished from the related concepts of surplus labor and surplus product. The concept was subsequently developed and popularized by Karl Marx. Marx's formulation is the standard sense and the primary basis for further developments, though how much of Marx's concept is original and distinct from the Ricardian concept is disputed. Marx's term is the German word "Mehrwert", which simply means value added, and is cognate to English "more worth".

The socialist mode of production, also known as socialism or communism, is a specific historical phase of economic development and its corresponding set of social relations that emerge from capitalism in the schema of historical materialism within Marxist theory. The Marxist definition of socialism is that of production for use-value, therefore the law of value no longer directs economic activity. Marxist production for use is coordinated through conscious economic planning. According to Marx, distribution of products is based on the principle of "to each according to his needs"; Soviet models often distributed products based on the principle of "to each according to his contribution". The social relations of socialism are characterized by the proletariat effectively controlling the means of production, either through cooperative enterprises or by public ownership or private artisanal tools and self-management. Surplus value goes to the working class and hence society as a whole.

Marxian economics, or the Marxian school of economics, is a heterodox school of political economic thought. Its foundations can be traced back to Karl Marx's critique of political economy. However, unlike critics of political economy, Marxian economists tend to accept the concept of the economy prima facie. Marxian economics comprises several different theories and includes multiple schools of thought, which are sometimes opposed to each other; in many cases Marxian analysis is used to complement, or to supplement, other economic approaches. Because one does not necessarily have to be politically Marxist to be economically Marxian, the two adjectives coexist in usage, rather than being synonymous: They share a semantic field, while also allowing both connotative and denotative differences. An example of this can be found in the works of Soviet economists like Lev Gatovsky, who sought to apply Marxist economic theory to the objectives, needs, and political conditions of the socialist construction in the Soviet Union, contributing to the development of Soviet Political Economy.

References

  1. ↑ Marx, Karl. Capital, volume 3.
  2. ↑ Karl Marx, Capital: Volume 3, Pelican edition, p. 599.
  3. ↑ Harvey, David (2006). Limits to Capital . London: Verso. p.  95. ISBN   978-1-84467-095-6.
  4. ↑ Itoh, Makoto; Lapavitsas, Costas (1998). Political Economy of Money and Finance. London and Basingstoke: Macmillan. ISBN   978-0-312-21164-6.
  5. ↑ Bichler, Shimshon; Nitzan, Jonathan (July 2010). "Systemic Fear, Modern Finance and the Future of Capitalism" (PDF). Jerusalem and Montreal.
  6. ↑ Nitzan, Jonathan; Bichler, Shimshon (2009). Capital as Power. A Study of Order and Creorder. RIPE Series in Global Political Economy. New York and London: Routledge. ISBN   978-0415496803.
  7. 1 2 3 4 Marx, Karl (1894). "Capital, volume 3, chapter 29" . Retrieved 26 June 2008.
  8. ↑ Harvey, David (2006). Limits to Capital . London: Verso. p.  276. ISBN   978-1-84467-095-6.
  9. ↑ Harvey, David (2006). Limits to Capital . London: Verso. pp.  294–296. ISBN   978-1-84467-095-6.
  10. ↑ "Nonfiction Book Review: Fictitious Capital: How Finance Is Appropriating Our Future". Publishers Weekly. Retrieved 20 December 2020.
  11. ↑ Durand, Cédric (2017). Fictitious Capital: How Finance Is Appropriating Our Future. Verso. ISBN   978-1-78478-719-6.
  12. ↑ Harvey, David (2006). Limits to Capital . London: Verso. pp.  276–277. ISBN   978-1-84467-095-6.
  13. ↑ Michael Hudson, "From Marx to Goldman Sachs: The Fictions of Fictitious Capital, and the Financialization of Industry". Critique. A journal of socialist theory, Vol. 38, No. 3, August 2010, pp. 419-444.
  14. ↑ Marx, Karl. Capital, volume 3. Penguin. p. 674.
  15. ↑ Marx, Karl. Capital, volume 3. Penguin. pp. 674–675.
  16. ↑ Goodell Ugalde, Elliot. “In Defence Of Marx’s Labour Theory Of Value: Vancouver’s Housing ‘Crisis.” Cultural Logic: A Journal of Marxist Theory and Practice, 26 (2024): 69-101. University of British Columbia Press.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.