Dieter Suhr
A summary by Andreas Bangemann
In 1988, Campus-Verlag Frankfurt/New York published Dieter Suhr's book "Der Kapitalismus als monetäres Syndrom - Aufklärung eines Widerspruchs in der Marxschen Politischen Ökonomie". The full text of the 106-page work is available for reading online on the website dieter-suhr.info.
Motivation for this summary
The rationale behind this summary is to provide a concise overview of the book in question, which addresses the pressing social and ecological crises of our time, the growing inequalities that accompany them, and the exploitation of natural resources. These issues have collectively prompted a resurgence in discussions surrounding alternative economic models. Marxist theories are currently undergoing a resurgence in popularity, with a growing number of individuals viewing them as a potential solution to the detrimental effects of capitalism. This trend is understandable, as many students and academics utilize Marx's work as a foundation for contemplating potential reforms to the system. However, this focus often results in a binary view in which capitalism and socialism are perceived as the only viable alternatives, with the two economic models being regarded as irreconcilably opposed to each other.
Additionally, there is an emerging trend toward reforming capitalism, evidenced by the recent rise in calls for a wealth tax or higher taxes on wealth and inheritance. Even those with considerable wealth, such as Marlene Engelhorn, are advocating for increased taxation of assets with the objective of reducing social inequality. These demands for redistribution and mitigation of extreme inequality cannot be directly attributed to classical Marxism. Rather, they represent an iteration of the social democratic tradition or "progressive capitalism," which relies on reforms within the system to mitigate the most damaging effects of capitalism. In contrast with Marx's proposal for the complete supersession of capitalism, these reforms seek to stabilize the system through the self-restraint of capital. These developments, however, also demonstrate an increasing discontent with the status quo and the imperative for the introduction of alternative solutions.
In the context of the dichotomous discourse that merely attempts to mitigate the effects of the capitalist system, a third alternative is frequently overlooked. Dieter Suhr first highlighted this possibility in his 1988 work, "Capitalism as a Monetary Syndrome." Suhr puts forth a radical yet pragmatic approach that is not predicated on a return to the socialist model nor on the perpetuation of capitalist structures. Instead, he develops a profound critique of the existing monetary system and demonstrates that the solution may lie beyond the traditional dichotomy of capitalism and socialism.
I therefore believe it is more necessary than ever to bring Suhr's work and that of many other monetary reformers back into focus. It is time to bring this third option back to the center of the economic policy debate and to go beyond the traditional thought patterns.
Introduction to the book
In his work, "Capitalism as a Monetary Syndrome," Dieter Suhr examines the fundamental role of money in the capitalist economic system, focusing his analysis on the structural role of money. In doing so, he offers a critical examination of the Marxist analysis of capitalist exploitation. Suhr posits that the private ownership of the means of production, as depicted by Marx, is not the primary cause of capitalism; rather, it is the inherent structural characteristics of the monetary system that drive this economic system. Suhr builds upon Marx's analysis by viewing money as an autonomous instrument of power that shapes the dynamics of capitalism. In light of Keynes' theory of liquidity preference, Suhr puts forth potential avenues for reforming the monetary system with a view to transcending capitalism.
Foreword and introduction
Suhr initiates an examination of Marx's conceptualization of capitalism, with a particular emphasis on the notion of private ownership of the means of production. In Marx's view, capitalism is founded upon the disintegration of the worker's relationship with the means of production. This, in turn, engenders a state of dependency on the part of the worker vis-à-vis the capitalist who exercises control over the means of production. For Marx, this separation is the root cause of capitalist exploitation.
Nevertheless, Suhr posits that the separation of workers from the means of production may not be the sole or most pivotal factor driving capitalist economies. He posits that the monetary system plays an equally, if not more, pivotal role. In his analysis, Suhr demonstrates that money is not merely a neutral medium of exchange; rather, it structures capitalism as "social power in private hands." Consequently, capital accumulation and exploitation are not merely a consequence of ownership of the means of production; they are also a result of the distinctive characteristics of money, which afford capitalists a disproportionate degree of power. In this context, Suhr also draws on the findings of John Maynard Keynes, in particular his concept of "liquidity preference." In his 1936 General Theory, Keynes posits that money occupies a unique position as a store of value due to its liquidity. This quality renders it more appealing to hoard than to introduce into the economic cycle. Suhr further demonstrates that the money system inherently facilitates capital accumulation by enabling the accumulation of liquidity without the necessity of productive work.
Criticism of the labor theory of value and Marx's theory of surplus value
A central tenet of Suhr's critique is the Marxist labor theory of value. In Marxist theory, the value of a commodity is determined by the amount of labor time it requires to produce. Surplus value is created exclusively in the production process through the application of labor. Marx defines surplus value as the discrepancy between the value created by workers through their labor and the wages they receive in return. The capitalist then diverts this surplus value by purchasing the labor power at a price that is below the value created by it.
In contrast, Suhr posits that money itself represents a source of surplus value, operating independently of productive labor. For him, money is not merely an "equivalent" for goods; rather, it is an instrument of power that generates added value through the lending of capital and the earning of interest. In this context, Suhr builds upon Keynes' analysis of liquidity preference and proposes an increase in the "carrying costs" associated with money in order to discourage hoarding.
In contrast to the use of interest as an incentive to reduce the accumulation of money and prevent shortages, the concept of "carrying costs" is designed to discourage the hoarding of money and maintain the flow of capital.
The concept of interest-bearing capital demonstrates that money can generate surplus value without directly participating in the production process. Although Marx acknowledged this form of capital, he did not ascribe to it the central role that Suhr did. In this way, Suhr broadens Marx's perspective by underscoring the influence of money beyond the conventional labor theory of value..
The "polarization" of capital and labour
Marx identified the polarization of capital and labor as a fundamental characteristic of capitalism. In this context, polarization can be defined as the separation of workers from the means of production, which ultimately results in the dependence of workers on capital. In Marx's view, this separation provides the foundation for capitalist exploitation, as it compels workers to sell their labor power to capitalists who control the means of production.
In his subsequent elaboration of the concept, Suhr posits money as a "condition for the realization of labor." Keynes' concept of liquidity preference is employed to illustrate the reinforcement of capital accumulation through the monetary system, as well as an intensification of the polarization of capital and labor. In an economy based on the division of labor, money serves as a mediator in the exchange process between producers and consumers. Furthermore, workers are separated from the money that enables the exchange of their labor and products. Control over money therefore enables control over the exchange process and, consequently, the conditions of labor. This asymmetrical power position of the money capitalists gives rise to a structural inequality between the owners of money and the workers that extends beyond the separation of labor and the means of production.
The money capitalist and the industrial capitalist
In his analysis of capital structures, Suhr distinguishes between the "money capitalist" and the "industrial capitalist." A similar distinction can be found in Marx's work. While Marx views the industrial capitalist as the primary exploiter, skimming surplus value from labor, Suhr posits that the money capitalist occupies a more powerful position. The money capitalist generates surplus value through the act of lending money and subsequently earning interest, irrespective of whether the money is invested in a productive capacity within the production process.
Although Marx had already acknowledged the concept of "interest-bearing capital," he did not regard it as the primary driving force behind capitalism. For Suhr, however, the true power of the money capitalist is revealed in the interest mechanism, as it is capable of generating surplus value without the necessity of engaging in productive work itself. This autonomy from the production process endows the money capitalist with a superior position in relation to both the industrial capitalist and the workers. Suhr builds upon Keynes' analysis of the liquidity function of money and expands upon Marx's theory by emphasizing the central role of the money capitalist as the dominant figure in the capitalist system, thereby consolidating the power of capital.
Money as a "superior power"
In his analysis of money as a dominant force within the capitalist system, Suhr extends beyond the conventional view of money as a medium of exchange. While Marx views money as a general equivalent for commodities, Suhr posits that money is an independent instrument of capital accumulation that generates added value through the generation of interest. This "power of money" is particularly evident during periods of economic crisis, when money assumes the role of the "commodity par excellence" and all other goods lose value unless they can be exchanged for money.
Suhr builds upon Marx's observations that money assumes a dominant role in the economic cycle during such periods, but goes further by arguing that this power of money is a defining feature of capitalism. Money is utilized not only as a neutral medium of exchange, but also as a means of accumulating capital and exerting control over the entirety of the economic process. This superior power of money serves to reinforce the structural inequality between those who control money capital and other economic actors.
Analysis of the "real capital currency"
In the course of his research into alternative currency concepts, Suhr concentrates on the "real capital currency" put forth by Wolfram Engels. The concept of a currency whose value is based on a portfolio of shares establishes a correlation between the value of the currency and the growth of physical capital. Suhr offers a critique of this argument, noting that it places undue emphasis on the value storage function of money, to the exclusion of the exchange function. Similarly, as Keynes described the potential risks associated with liquidity, such a currency could result in an "excessive accumulation of treasure."
Consequently, Suhr deems this currency an inadequate solution to the inherent problems of capitalism, as it fails to eradicate the structural mechanisms of capitalism, which are predicated on the liquidity premium, but rather serves to reinforce them.
Reform proposals: A "money without added value"
Suhr presents the reform of the monetary system as a potential solution to the current challenges inherent to capitalism. The objective is to eliminate surplus value from money and establish a more equitable system. He posits the concept of "money without surplus value," which would not be utilized for the accumulation of capital, but rather serve as a purely functional means of exchange. To achieve the desired reform of the monetary system, Suhr presents a series of monetary techniques, including the imposition of taxes or fees on monetary liquidity. The objective of these measures is to neutralize the interest rate mechanism and thereby reduce the incentive to hoard money. This suggests that capital will be returned to the productive cycle with greater alacrity, rather than being employed as a means of accumulation.
Suhr's concept of "money without surplus value" represents an extension of Keynes's idea that money should not serve as capital. This would render the generation of surplus value through the mere liquidity of money an impossibility. Suhr puts forth alternative models of lending and local banking systems that function on the basis of money that does not serve as capital, but rather as a mere facilitator of exchange.
A liberal and social monetary policy
In his analysis, Suhr posits that a "liberal-social monetary policy" has the potential to reform the capitalist system, thereby promoting social justice and economic stability. This policy is predicated on the principles of freedom of exchange, currency stability, and the elimination of exploitation. Suhr posits that the monetary system should no longer be utilized as a means of capital accumulation, but rather as an instrument for facilitating fair exchange and meeting the needs of all members of society.
In this liberal-social order, Suhr posits that individuals should be regarded as "community beings," whose needs should not be satisfied at the expense of others in a just economic system. The objective of such a system would be to diminish economic and social disparities and establish a stable and just social order.
Conclusion
In his work, "Capitalism as a Monetary Syndrome," Dieter Suhr presents a comprehensive and nuanced examination of the role of money in the capitalist system. The author illustrates that money serves not only as a medium of exchange but also as a crucial source of power within the capitalist system. As a result, the capitalist monetary system gives rise to an increase in structural exploitation, which in turn contributes to an increase in inequality. In his analysis, Suhr emphasizes the role of money beyond that which was previously considered in Marxist theory, thus providing a new perspective on the causes of capitalism.
On the basis of his detailed reform proposals, Suhr presents approaches for redesigning the monetary system with the aim of overcoming capitalism and establishing a fairer economy. In his call for a "money without surplus value" and a "liberal-social monetary policy," Suhr integrates Keynes' theory of liquidity preference and interest and not only develops it further within the framework of his own analyses, but also extends it beyond the original parameters. Dieter Suhr presents a radical yet indispensable alternative to the extant economic system. His work constitutes a significant contribution to the ongoing debate surrounding the necessary conditions for the overcoming of capitalism, as it provides valuable impetus for the reform of the monetary system.