Forgive me if this is not the proper place for this post. I tried to find an area connected with the piece I will be referring to but couldnt find it.

Anyway, this is in response to the March 18 interview you conducted with Sam Ginden, Greg Albo and Leo Panitch, concerning some basic points touched on.

1. How do these three, and yourself, account for accumulation; iow, how does it occur? We have two basic mainstream theories – Marxist and liberal neoclassical. I know that their writings tend to include Marxist concepts, particularly of course those pertaining to crises – either of under or overaccumulation. However, beyond that accumulation appears as an extension of state interests. There is no attempt to theorize accumulation beyond its supposed tendency for crises. One is thus left assuming (never a good position) that they must either adhere to the fuller Marxist concept (including surplus labour) or just do not have a theory of accumulation that they wish to share.

2. Since these three alert us to the natural tendency towards crises, it is no surprise they take of particular interest what they refer to as “financial capital”. What other kind of capital is there? Is not all capital finance? All things in the realm of capital may be discounted – that is, assigned a price. Thus is not capital solely concerned with the differential nature of prices. In the processes of accumulation, what else is there but finance (the movement, or not, of capital)? Is there non-financial capitalism – capital that either is not concerned with prices or is not affected by them?