We will share this discussion
with Spyros...
and I hope with success.
We will try to analyze
an argument here.
It is an overall argument
starting from Marx's analysis...
some basic categories of his work...
and reaching an interesting,
I wouldn't say new,
but different from the dominant
interpretation of capitalism...
which leads to several political
conclusions which we will discuss.
In short, what is the structure
of the argument.
In all Marx's mature writings,
mentioned also by previous speakers
there are some key categories,
some basic notions...
which constitute
a comprehensive way...
of thinking and understanding
capitalism.
It is a chain of categories
as they're connected...
and in a way
the one entails the other.
These are the commodities,
the money...
in my view, the central category
for understanding capitalism...
is capital as a commodity.
These and the Theory of Forms
and not only the analysis of labor...
but mainly the Theory of Forms
differentiates Marx from Ricardo.
Concepts as the Value-Form and
the Commodity and Money Form
are basic notions for understanding
the Capital as a social relation.
Once we reach the Form
of capital as Commodity...
we believe there emerges a notion
of risk that isn't developed.
We don't follow the lines of the text
but the philosophy of the text.
We think that there is such
an inherent concept in Marx...
and plays a vital role
in his argument.
This analysis is very crucial
for understanding capitalism,
and the financial credit system...
both playing a dominant role
in today's form of capitalism.
If you read the Capital...
you'll see that Marx has a certain way
to present his concepts.
This is a huge discussion, but I don't
have the time to elaborate on it.
Perhaps Spyros will make
some comments on this.
There some extensive historical aspects
which according to Althusser...
play a theoretical role...
they aren't just some stories
intervening in the central analysis.
They play a theoretical role...
and enlighten in a theoretical
and historical way...
aspects of Marx's era.
In the "Capital" you will find several
excerpts referring to the historical period...
and mainly to the labor process
inside the factory.
A way to understand
the structure of the exploitation.
As a very brief introduction
of what will follow...
I would like to mention two different
aspects of Marx's era...
which are very strong...
and they are not enlightened by the
historical quotations in the "Capital".
and must be kept in mind to understand
his era and his argument.
Since 1860 in Great Britain...
the bondholders who are not
a large part of the population...
but know how to differentiate
their portfolio...
have a technology
for managing risk...
for the diversification
of the portfolio.
This discussion is widespread
among the institutional investors...
and the local bondholders.
On average every English bondholder
has 4 or 5 bonds in his portfolio.
Engels, after his retirement
kept a large portfolio in Manchester
and his will contained several companies,
many of which were international.
So this was a very widespread
practice.
There were even analyses of this type
which explained to investors...
how to employ the technology
for managing the capital.
The second element
we need to bear in mind...
beyond the circumstances of exploitation
inside the factory is that...
already existed
the spontaneous emergence...
of financial forms for the organization
of local communities.
Oldham is a prime example.
It is a region near Manchester
where Engels lived.
In the '50s and '60s an industrial
recovery takes place in this region...
Many companies started
as co-operatives...
which raise capital
from the local community.
So, in the '50s and '60s...
three quarters of the shareholders
are salaried workers.
In the archives of the period, the region
is referred to as a huge limited company.
According to the "Oldham Chronicle"
of that period...
equity transactions would occur
every day in every part of the city.
This type of financial
organization of capitalism...
goes hand in hand
with Marx's analyses...
talking about the exploitation
of labor within factories.
These are structural features...
of the organization and
the emergence of capitalism.
In order to understand
Marx's arguments...
we should bear in mind
these two main aspects...
because using the analysis of Forms
and the chain of arguments...
Marx attempts to outline
and interpret the circumstances...
in which it was formed
and existed.
Here I will give the floor to Spyros...
if there is time I'll be back
before the end.
Continuing this presentation...
I will refer to what Dimitris
Sotiropoulos previously said.
From "Grundrisse" to the "Capital"
there is a chain of categories...
which is somehow a set of forms,
an abstract set of forms...
that permeates the entire
"Capital" organising it.
The central categories are:
Money- money as money.
The capital as money
or as commodity...
in the second volume referring
to the capital cycles.
money as capital.
The last category being - when
discussing money as capital -
capital as capital itself.
The capital as capital
becoming a commodity.
Not just the capital as commodity.
This is an earlier category.
The capital as capital
that becomes a commodity.
This chain of categories...
we will try to introduce
not to the required depth...
but at an abstract level
which allows us...
to understand essential aspects
of contemporary capitalism...
not only modern capitalism
but also the older one, its structure.
Hopefully we shall have
enough time to complete it.
Let's start with the first part.
Apart from the twofold
character of labor...
Marx considers one of his contributions
the analysis of the form of value.
This is a key point, as shown
on the slide up there...
in order to make a difference
from classical political economy.
Trying to analyze
the form of value...
that is, how the value is displayed,
how it acquires empirical existence...
not being simply a creation
in our mind in order to analyze...
but rather existing around us.
This is a key point
which distinguishes him...
from classical
political economy...
while offering in the 1st, 2nd and
3rd chapter of the first volume...
where he attempts to outline
the formation of this concept...
and show its dynamic...
offering a magnificent analysis
of the way notions are formed.
How are we to proceed?
We have to go backwards.
Excuse me for a moment
to solve this technical issue.
It is crucial
and we insist on this...
to understand the way...
in which this theoretical
movement of Marx was formed.
What did he do in the 1st, the 2nd
and at the beginning of the 3rd chapter...
where temporarily the analysis
for money is suspended...
to be then it is continued
through the Capital.
The title of the first chapter
is the commodity.
The title of the second chapter
is the process of the exchange.
The 3rd chapter starts
with money.
So, what does he do?
He starts with the analysis
of two theoretical threads...
which are two major
theoretical movements...
through which he analyzes the
commodity and the money form.
In the first chapter he answers
to the following key question...
that was mentioned
by previous speakers as well:
Imagine a society
with social division of labor...
having holders of commodities.
How the fundamental issue
can be addressed...
in order for us to have
the possibility to think...
how this society works,
how society really works.
How may anyone owning a commodity...
find out what it is worth out of the total
volume other commodities?
What power this commodity has
over all other commodities?
How to address this issue?
How to answer
this question?
The answer given by Marx, resulting
from the history of the surplus-value,
is that is that any producer
or holder of commodities...
by bringing his product
to the market...
he treats it as a command on a given
quantity of all expressions of social labor.
The answer he gives
is the word "value".
The word value
is a term...
that resolves this problem...
and any other meaning
eventually arising in the Capital...
since it is not exhausted
at this point...
add a richer meaning thereon.
We have two theoretical threads
through which he attempts..
to answer to this question:
How a society can be organized
based on value...
so that all this is not just things
that we think...
but how the objects of
our experiences get structured.
That is, in what way money
and commodities are produced...
as a solution to this issue...
in a society of isolated individual
holders of commodities.
Firstly he analyzes the theoretical
structure of the exchange.
We have opted for this wording.
The first chapter, "the Commodity",
constitutes a reply...
to the question of how
can such a society be formed...
He analyses a theoretical structure
of the exchange.
In the second chapter,
that has a peculiarity...
i. e. it is not exactly
a theoretical chapter...
he enriches the theoretical structure
of the exchange with a practice.
He says under what conditions...
As a matter of fact he tries
to answer a question...
that is not answered
in the first chapter:
Under what conditions is value as a social
relationship established.
More simply put...
in the first chapter he refers to the conditions
circumstances allowing the exchange...
in what way an exchange gets
structured as a possibility...
and in the second chapter he refers...
to the conditions needed for
this structure to be established.
He organizes this movement
- we will not go into details-...
bringing two different ways
together that are:
the classical political economy...
symbolically named afer Ricardo,
on the one hand...
and Bailey, on the other hand, who
is not a classical political economist.
So, bringing together two different
possibilities to establish...
political economy itself.
They are very basic and
at the heart of the formation...
of the political economy's discourse
and the economic theory.
A common thought about how
producers may solve the problem
of the value of their products
within the world of goods...
that is, what someone can get
with the commodity he has...
is reduce all exchanges traffic etc.
If we want to understand
how this system works...
we may disregard money.
Practically, I give a commodity
and I get money...
and with this money
I get another commodity.
So money plays only a role
of mediation...
so I can put it aside...
and reduce the theoretical
foundation of the exchange...
on the C-C scheme, i. e. to exchange
a commodity with another commodity.
Money is not needed here.
Money is only a way to
cut on complexity
to quote Habermas
or according to Adam Smith.
It's just something
we can put aside.
It does not play an essential role...
and the entire economic theory
can be reduced to the C-C...
as a fundamental representation...
of the formation even
of the modern economic theory...
as regards the issues
of general balance theories.
We may talk using relative prices
putting aside money.
This is a fundamental representation...
constituting the ground of
political economy.
As we shall see,
the thought of Marx shows...
that this is not a fundamental presentation
leading to misunderstandings.
In order to criticize this...
and to establish what
we previously mentioned...
he takes what Ricardo says
or what we call "labor dimension".
What does C-C mean?
We exchange one commodity
with another commodity...
calculating the job done
for the first commodity...
and the work done
for the second commodity...
so since we are in this society
and we want to solve this problem
each one trades the work done
for this commodity...
and this is value.
So, value is the work done
for each commodity...
and so C-C is standardized at
to "work"; it is exchanged with "work".
This is the first statement
judged by Marx.
The second statement
is taken from Baley.
It says that whatever happens
in the exchange, in this C-C...
is an equation of commodities
in different quantities...
that cannot be linked to
anything else.
All you see is that I sell a commodity,
I get money...
we skip money
because you do not need it...
and using this money
I get another commodity.
So in essence, we trade
two quantities of merchandise.
It cannot be linked to anything else
and this is not accidental.
The Ricardian theory that this
Is linked to labor...
is a metaphysical assumption,
as Bailey said.
So Marx takes these
two established statements...
and uses them as a framework,
as a raw material for processing.
He implements
a theoretical practice...
and uses the one as a framework
for the control of the other...
with appropriate modifications.
He takes two different antinomies
of the political economy...
and he brings the one
against the other.
And bringing the one against
the other he criticizes both...
producing something new.
This is a theoretical movement
happening in the first chapter...
before the second theoretical
thread of the exchange starts.
So to sum up.
We have the first
theoretical thread...
which is the theoretical
structure of the exchange.
And the second theoretical thread
which is the exchange itself.
The first theoretical thread
is composed of two parts.
The first part is the criticism
of the Ricardian model.
The second part is...
What he does in the first part...
In this diagram we see
the arguments of Marx...
where in the third figure
he raises the central issue...
which shows that after
removing the use of value...
why two objects or commodities
are identical.
It is a question of symmetry.
Why two different objects are
identical and can be exchanged?
This is a central issue.
How could we consider identical
the work of a pilot...
with the work of a digger?
How could these different
object be compared?
They are completely different and
they are measured in different terms.
He answers with a third factor
which is value.
At the same time,
he starts a second analysis...
and in this part
he criticizes Ricardo...
saying that the work of the pilot
and the work of the digger...
cannot be compared because they are
asymmetrical one to each other.
So there should be
another type of work...
which would be an abstract labor.
What is this third type?
This is of paramount importance
in order to understand...
the entire course of abstract
labor in Marx's "Capital".
It is the removal
of expediency.
The specific labors and the use
of their values have a purpose.
I intend to make something,
I implement a practice.
I intend to make a chair.
The purpose of making a chair
will determine the raw material...
the moves I will make,
the tools I will use and so on.
So in order to find
abstract labor...
we must remove it
from expediency.
Removing it from the purpose
the object has...
you end up in nothing, in void,
in an empty waste of time.
So we cannot conceptualize
with this abstract labor.
The second part
is a critique of Ricardo...
starting essentially
from Bailey's representation.
He takes the analysis
of the value form.
the simple form MA = y B...
and shows that it is needed
for C-C to be standardized at C-M.
It is necessary when
two commodities are exchanged...
the one will always play
the role of the value counter value.
So, the C-C graph cannot
be considered fundamental...
it should be the result of the graph
"commodity and money" instead.
And he ends up to the establishment
of the money form.
But there is a problem here.
The problem is that in the whole
theoretical development...
in order to go from the general
form of value, i. e. number three...
to reach up to
the money form...
- we will not analyze them all,
we simply spot the point-...
while all other forms
are theoretically generated...
from the expression of the value...
the value shall be expressed
and produces the forms...
the money form which is necessary
cannot be produced theoretically.
Without money form
you have no exchange.
What organizes the exchange?
The forms commodity and money.
If the money form
cannot be produced...
you show that for the exchange
merchandise and money are needed...
but further conditions are needed...
conditions of existence are
so that itin order to can be established.
So, this completes
the first chapter.
It demonstrates that the dimension
of labor does not exist.
The concepts value and abstract labor
are central...
to understand how
the exchange is organized.
Second, quantitative dimension
is not valid.
Also, it cannot be applied for the
establishment of the economic theory.
In order to understand this
social-economic system...
on the base of anti-pragmatism,
the C-C...
the types of commodities
are necessary...
which is the relationship
of a value in used...
with the ideal value,
i. e. with money.
The form of money is also
the relationship of money...
with the value of use.
Since these are relations
but we treat them as objects...
a third movement is needed...
which is implemented
in the chapter on fetishism...
and these relations
materialize into objects.
So, although the commodity
is a relationship...
we understand it
as an object...
and although money
is a relationship...
we understand it
as an object.
The second theoretical thread
which in essence is not a theoretical...
because it makes people
to make up the concepts...
that we read in the first chapter...
without including the necessary
conditions...
required to reach from the ancient
exchange to modern money.
Practically, it's like
describing a fairy tale.
There is no theoretical depth in
the second chapter of the exchange.
Apparently it plays the role of the
secondary lines of presentation
as Althusser had shown
in his work...
which are not included in
the main line of presentation...
but somehow because they exist
they constitute external developments
of the main line...
having a theoretical role
as an indicator.
They show the analysis
that should have been done...
in order for the first
to be complete.
So the question of existence
in the second chapter...
is solved in the following way.
Invoking the social habit
he says...
that people exchange...
and when it spreads
through social habit...
and capitalist mode of production is established
then money is established too.
What does this tell us?
it does not answer the question
directly but highlights the following:
I showed you
that it is possible...
for the capitalist mode of production
to have an autonomy...
in relation
to other social practices.
But in order for us to answer
how the exchange occurs...
it cannot occur by itself
but it has a basic autonomy.
Money is not established
by the State.
Without the state we cannot
imagine money...
but at the same time the practice
of the exchange has an autonomy...
imposed on society
along with other requirements.
What are these other requirements?
Overall they constitute
the capitalist mode of production...
so that this structure of exchange
would be established.
Completing the first two chapters
Marx has proved the following:
Money has a dual role.
It is a relationship
condensed in one thing...
which is a bond with society.
This comes from the Grundrisse but
we can find similar ideas in the "Capital"...
and at the same time
it is power.
What is money?
The money that I have in my pocket
is my bond with society...
and power over society.
So in one object are concentrated
two completely different logics.
The logic of equivalence that
I can exchange this thing...
with other things and
implement an economic practice...
and the logic of hierarchies.
Money may establish
a logic of hierarchies.
So as a derivative
of this whole analysis...
money itself concentrates
a dual thing...
something that has to do with the
economy and politics simultaneously
which is produced independently.
It is not a product of the State.
The State is forced to welcome it
but it could not be done without the State.
All this analysis opens
the possibility of judgments.
I will not elaborate at all on this...
because since you treat money
as a necessary form...
there is the standard
possibility of judgments.
Marx analyzes the standard
possibility of judgements...
on the basis that the C-C
is not valid.
As he continues analyzing money
he integrates faith.
If we include the time
between purchase and sale...
the forms of the market do not
constitute anything else.
If you say that I buy something
and pay later...
or if you say I pay now
and buy later...
paying now and buy later are
modern forms of derivatives...
which are the futures or forwards
of the commodities.
The introduction of time to the form
I buy and pay later...
introduces faith.
Introduces the possibility
for the money itself to be withdrawn
replacing it with bills of exchange,
of written promises to pay.
And two terms appear:
the creditor and the debtor...
and Marx explicitly says...
and he will repeat it
for interest-bearing capital...
that these roles are different from
the ones coming from the Middle Ages.
They are roles that alternate.
Their relation is financial
and not of economic violence.
Their relation is financial...
and in the same way he analyzes
the interest-bearing capital.
Moving on if we keep
this route in our minds...
starting from merchandise
which in order to express its value
should make the same
connection with the money...
and at the same time
they are withdrawn by faith
we go to capital.
The general formula of the capital
given by Marx...
is give money, I buy labor,
means of production...
I put them into work
and create a surplus-value...
which is the basis of the profit.
At the same time
in the fifth chapter...
Marx starts talking about the general
form of the labor process...
which is a timeless process.
We have raw materials,
we have the task, the tools...
the worker using the tools
produces the product...
and this is the general
process of the labor.
This is where a second
transformation starts...
which has to do with
richer forms of money.
What is the second transformation?
To understand it we should think
what is not capital.
It is not capital the format
which says that I give money...
I hire labor, I hire product
I put them to work...
more merchandise comes out
and I get more money.
This is not capital.
What is capital?
Capital is when
in one way or another...
I give money, I hire labor, I buy
means of production, raw materials
I put them to work and at the same time
there is a utilization process.
What we call capital
is the relationship...
between the labor process as defined by
the requirements of the evaluation process...
and at the same time
the utilization process.
As Marx says, I take these
I put them to work...
but I make no profit.
I make some change to see hoe I can
generate surplus-value, some profit.
In this process you count
the labor timeline...
for the particular work
which has a purpose...
you measure the raw materials
and the modes of production...
so that they would generate
money.
In the accounting department
of each company what do they do?
The specialty of the use values
is subtracted...
measuring in money
used for the purchase...
what is the cost
of the product.
Although the value
and abstract labor...
require the exchange level
where they are organized...
nevertheless they are incorporated.
The analysis for the capital
what does it show?
If we want to find out
in what way subtraction works...
it works in the exchange.
There it takes an objective form
of appearance...
because it appears
as a commodity and money.
How is it formed?
As an overall social capital but
in the accounts of each company...
where the substraction was done.
Now this whole thing leads us...
to think in a next step...
after we have kept the capital
as a double utilization process...
in which there is always a risk...
because when you are trying
to generatea profit...
the modes of production
may not be appropriate...
You have to face labor resistance...
against what must work
in that way or another.
In order to generate profit
you have to take many risks.
So the risk lies in the heart
of the conflict...
between the utilization relationship
and the labor one.
When we move on and go
to the third volume...
about money
and capital...
for this segment where
the interest-bearing capital appears
here we find...
I have to be brief now.
- How much time do I have?
- The time is over.
I will be very brief.
What appears to the
interest-bearing capital...
is that it takes a form
not of exchange, but of assignment.
There is a cession of money...
so that it would be taken
by an active capitalist...
and put it to work as capital.
So money here
has two different predicates.
The first is that
it has a value in use...
so that it can work
as a potential capital.
And the second problem
which exists...
and sets an entirely new dimension
to the concept of money
in the first three chapters...
is that money at that time
which is assigned...
before it gets assigned,
it has two different values.
Two different value-sizes,
to be exact.
It has one form of value
but two different value-sizes.
One is the value-size,
which is declared as money...
as buying power.
The second is the value-size...
which could be productive
if it was utilized as capital.
So it is an indefinite size.
Money gets the form
of self-valorizing value...
and at the same time
it is a vague value-size...
which obviously is the subject
of conflicts etc.
When we get to this point
talking about interest-bearing capital
money is assigned and
a production process starts...
there is a surplus-value
and then profit is generated...
Marx observes that the act of transfer
of this peculiar value...
of this peculiar commodity
which has a value-use...
and the potential capital
or an undetermined value
and the one who borrowed it
gives it back with an interest rate...
they are external parts
of the productive process.
This exteriority enables the form M-M'
being distinct and self-contained.
Obviously it is not independent...
because the whole utilization
depends on the labor capital.
As such he creates a new form...
which Marx calls
objective form of capital appearance.
That is, the first time
capital appears as capital
is when the relation
between M-M' is organized...
thus, you have money
and this thing generates value...
being a self-valorizing value.
This thing creates
two possibilities.
The one is to think that money is
potentially a potential capital.
This is because we deposit our money
in the bank and it becomes capital etc.
And the second is to consider
capital as such into a title...
which then can become
a commodity.
Thus, capital itself as capital
may become a commodity.
Now summarizing what has been said.
I think the following was clear:
When we get
to the fictitious capital form...
that is, by the time
we think about...
what is the interest-bearing capital
and what functions it serves
at the same time we think that..
I give money to get money
plus interest
it can be thought vice versa.
Whatever has the form of a revenue
with an interest...
could come from a capital
giving you this interest.
It is what we call capitalization
or otherwise discount forms.
So each revenue flow, for instance
the flow of revenues from taxes...
may be able to create a title...
which will be capitalized
on this revenue flow.
This is what happened in 2001...
so that Greece could manage
to become a member of the Euro zone.
This is the basic structure according to
which financial markets work.
So, what happens once we establish
the interest-bearing capital...
is that we create a category
that any revenue flow...
can be thought as the title
that becomes a commodity...
thus the basis for organizing
the financial markets etc.
What does this formula
of capital ratio do?
We have a formula because
it is an objective form of existence...
not just a formula.
It is a formula of conditions for
utilizing almost any individual capital...
integrating the risk taken
constantly...
which is the root
that we can identify in jeopardy.
Second, it supports the implementation
of a permanent capital.
It plays an important role
through the discipline exerted...
an important role in the organization
of social power relations.
Overall, we can think all this
through a format as follows:
We have a commodity and in order
to be able to express its value
it must be established
as a commodity and as money...
and then money is withdrawn
through the bill of exchange...
through credit money.
We have capital
which is not capital for us...
It is capital for the active capitalist,
who is trying to generate profit...
being subordinated to the laws
of self-valorizing value...
which takes an objective form
of existence as an M-M'...
and this M-M' gets withdrawn
on the basis of a wider faith.
Like two large parallel movements...
unfolding in the three volumes
of the "Capital".
Where does this lead us?
Dimitris shall explain that.
You have five more minutes.
- How do we turn it off?
- Press the green button.
This could be a conclusion.
What we should remember
from this presentation...
and what are the key points
arising from this analysis?
First, the argument of Marx
is organized...
to be extended to three,
four volumes.
So when we talk about
modern capitalism...
the analysis of the value form
is critical and useful...
but it cannot limit the way
of our understanding...
of the particular organization
of capitalism.
The second argument...
which Spyros developed
in a comprehensive manner...
and through the development
of the organization of forms...
is that the basic concrete form
of the capital organization...
namely the way in which capital
appears at a certain level of analysis...
is the interest- bearing capital.
What is capital,
may one asks.
It is a form of a financial title.
This is how capital appears.
This has already existed
since the time of Marx.
On this basis, up to a certain level,
are established all the operations...
relating to the investment
decisions of the capitalist.
Therefore this opens up
a whole debate.
What is this concept which capital
gives us in this form?
Capital as a commodity,
as a financial title...
which appear at a price.
In this argument of Marx,
there are two key moments.
The first moment
is the materialization of fetishism.
When Marx develops the analysis
of the financial system...
he studies an extensive number
of theorists of the era.
In the very few pieces, in which
he develops his own logic...
he speaks of materialization,
he speaks of fetishism...
he speaks of
interest-bearing capital.
This is the particular form
of capital.
So, we have a materialization
condition...
and secondly
the main feature of this process...
is that capital appears
as a commodity at a price.
So, how is price determined?
And here comes just very briefly
the concept of risk taking.
What is the concept of risk taking?
They are strategic ideological
formulas...
of class social relations
in a society...
which are crystallized
in the price of a commodity.
And this concept...
which in our view is structural
in Marx's argument...
as Marx implicitly developed it...
requires a specific concept of risk
as an ideological representation...
of the dynamics
of the class relations in a society...
because only in this way
can capital acquire a price...
and be organized within the framework of risk
management that existed since then.
Do I have two minutes?
OK, one minute is left.
Because this form
appears in a population...
containing different
relationships of power...
in order to operate as a model
of capital organization...
a symmetrization of the different
relations of power is needed...
represented in different
forms of risk taking...
and this symmetrization is crucial
for the organization of the capital...
and this symmetrization is achieved
with the market-derivatives.
Observing the last format
included in our presentation...
it is the size as a GDP rate
of the developed countries...
of the capital markets.
The red line represents
the over the counter...
the non commercial
tailor made products...
the others are the products
in the open markets...
their rate after the economic crisis
is fixed at 1.500% of the GDP...
of the developed countries...
and at about 150%-200%
in the other market.
So, a critical issue
to understand capitalism...
in my view, only Marx can offer us
such an interpretation.
That is, why these markets have reached
at this point...
What is their efficacy...
in the organization
of the class exploitation...
and in my view, it is a sign of burying
one's head in the sand...
- as leftists believe-
who consider it a speculation
with no meaning at all
for understanding capitalism.
Thank you.
