What Difference do Derivatives Make?

From the Technical to the Political Conjuncture

By Randy Martin

Abstract
In the aftermath of the great bailout of capital in 2008 (and still ongoing) finance
has often been seen as external and parasitical to the real economy. Instead, fi-
nance and other forms of capital have become more closely articulated and inter-
woven. A critical social logic of the derivative is offered here, following on
Marxs analysis of the commodity, to consider what is meant by dominance of
finance, what difference finance makes and the politics of debt. The derivative
provides key insights into the apparently detached process by which money seems
to beget more money, and at the same time discloses the internal socialization and
interdependence that is at the root of a politically generative mutual indebtedness.

Keywords: Derivatives, financialization, debt, socialization, capital, commodi-

ties, Marx, sociology.

Martin, Randy: What Difference do Derivatives Make?,

Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014: 189210. Hosted by Linkping University Electronic Press:
http://www.cultureunbound.ep.liu.se
Introduction
The capitalism in which finance prevails presents all manner of challenges at
once conceptual and political. In what follows, a critical look at derivatives will
provide a portal through which to engage the antinomies of finance. Derivatives
give form to that contradictory relation between the move to money as such, and
the moves deeper into social materiality and interdependence. Unpacking deriva-
tives, not simply as a technical device of finance, but as a key to the social logics
and relations that inhere in the current conjuncture of capital, will address three
cardinal riddles of finance. First, what does financial dominance mean for an un-
derstanding of how capitalism works (or doesnt); second, what historical differ-
ence does this prevalence of finance make; and third, how to understand the social
and political implications of the preponderance of financial debt?
Following Marx a critical social logic begins with the way wealth presents it-
self, today most emblematically in the form of the derivative, an instrument for
pricing risk, and then moves to the mutual interdependence, now evident in debt,
which discloses the historical agency of associated producers. Analytically speak-
ing, the internal logic of the derivative shifts attention from understanding the
world selectively on capitals own terms to value instead the labor that is constitu-
tive of society; the socialism that is immanent to capitalism. Before moving to the
three conundrums of finance, some conceptual groundwork needs to be estab-
lished regarding crisis, Marx and the meaning of derivatives.

Contrasting Crises
The financial crisis evident in the implosion of subprime lending and the subse-
quent bailout of certain corporations did much to fix attention on the politics of
debt without yielding much by way of unity of analysis or course of action. Ra-
ther, two contrasting vistas are evident. In one, finance seems to exist in a world
apart from most peoples everyday lives. In this realm, money is made from mon-
ey, seemingly out of thin air that never comes down to earth. Finance in this re-
gard is speculative, fictitious, metaphysical and immaterial. And yet from that
very ground upon which finance supposedly does not tread, people are feeling
great pain, not least because they are collectively paying for what has been taken
from them, in this case trillions in public monies being used to underwrite the
rescue of purportedly deserving capital. This is the other perspective on finance
that is identified as all too real: it bites, cuts, makes itself felt and known in every
nook and cranny of experience the world round. These material effects are not
restricted to public sacrifice for private gains, but extend to all manner of weigh-
ing what is worthy and valuable, from childrearing, education, healthcare, retire-
ment; really any kind of life outcome to which people might be oriented. From

[190] Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014

this perspective, far from being an unproductive deviation from the actual econo-
my, finance is as real as it gets.
For long-time critical observers of these dynamics, all this might look like
business as usual. Capital accumulates by denying access to means of subsistence
that subsequently forces labor into mutual association, as was a consequence of
the feudal enclosures of the European peasantry that extended from the 13th to the
17th centuries (Perelman 2000); then flees the demands that are made from any
other than itself on the surplus that results (Brown 1987); and furthers the com-
pression or annihilation of space by time (Harvey 1999). The complication would
come if this flight is one from the commodity itself. Accordingly, capital is no
longer productive, but cannibalizes itself (Soederberg 2011). Bypassing the hid-
den source of its wealth, labor power, it becomes merely speculative, and replaces
surplus value with a series of bets in which the gain of one is the loss of another in
a game of zero-sum. This is one understanding of what Marx called fictitious
capital, the promissory notes that serve as capital for the banker, used for mul-
tiple loans in excess of actual deposits, that he saw as at once, illusory bearing
its own laws of motion and representing the capital of the public as its own
(Marx 1894/1967b: 463-75).
Like much in Marx, there is more to the story than a technical distinction
among forms of money and capital. Not only does capital socialize labor inter-
changeable and interdependent--but finance is a means by which capital itself is
socialized, what he termed concentration and centralization, or the elimination of
private property within capitalist relations:
This result of the ultimate development of capitalist production is a necessary transi-
tional phase towards the reconversion of capital into the property of producers, alt-
hough no longer as the private property of the individual producers, but rather as the
property of associated producers, as outright social property. On the other hand, the
stock company is a transition toward the conversion of all functions in the reproduc-
tion process that still remain linked with capitalist property, into mere functions of
associated producers, into social functions. (Marx 1894/1967b: 437).

Whereas for any individual financial hedge there appears only a winner and a los-
er, for capitalist accumulation as a whole, the realms of production where surplus
value is made, and circulation where value is realized, move closer together. Seen
from the perspective of the socialization of labor and of capital, the expansion of
finance would variously disburse, implicate and elaborate relations of production
and circulation internal to one another. More specifically it could be said that fi-
nance poses precisely this contradiction; namely, between what appears as capital
for itself, money that makes money through speculation or pure circulation, and
capital for (or really through) others that generates all manner of mutual entan-
glement, encumbrance, and debt in multiple forms and consequences. Most simp-
ly put the politics in Capital lies in how to get from mutual interdependence to
free association; from debt as a burdensome chain, to indebtedness as a basis for
creating society by and for those who collectively generate its wealth.

Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014 [191]

Marxs Mutual Indebtedness
How might this double movement be understood, toward what appears as the
merely speculative on the one hand, and heightened indebtedness (with its at-
tendant ambivalent meanings) on the other? Here, it makes sense to follow Marxs
lead in his analysis of the commodity in the opening chapter of Capital, some-
thing at first sight easily understood as a thing-in-itself, that abounds in metaphys-
ical niceties, which turn out not to be metaphysical at all, but direct us toward an
understanding of the social basis of wealth and of life together. The commodity
bears the labor that made it possible, but the single commodity is but a moment of
an immense accumulation, not simply of capital, but of human activity treated as
if it existed for and through its capacity to generate a world of exchange, one
where the subsistence of each is contingent upon and mediated through an expan-
sive, profit-taking universe of commodity production.
What Marx termed the society of producers laboring populations that exist
for and through one another is the social basis for the alternative logic that lies
within and against capitalism, its immanent condition of socialism (M Brown
1986). Much of course disrupts, displaces and redirects the political trajectories of
this immanence; no particular outcome or trajectory is guaranteed. Mutual social
indebtedness is for capital, an often intolerable excess of accumulation, in particu-
lar when expressed as calls for justice, equality, or new demands that emerge from
various social movements that make their own claims on societys wealth.
This in a nutshell is the internal contradiction Marx finds in the accumulation
of capital, that the pursuit of wealth in the form of burgeoning quantities of com-
modities also expands and deepens the interdependence and capacities to express
the social from those very populations that capital depends upon but disavows and
denies. The terms of political contestation are formed between capitals denial of
its debt to labor and labors recognition of its own mutual indebtedness. While
productive activity goes by many names today, more and more labor continues to
be performed albeit under various guises and conditions, as those activities that
comprised social reproduction and intellectual labor (the so-called knowledge
economy) become increasingly integral to the overall accumulation process. The
ascent of finance needs to be understood in the context of this expanding realm of
the kinds, scope and scale of activities both across the globe and within the re-
cesses of the human psyche that constitute the continuation of the immense ac-
cumulation that drives capitalism.

Derivatives Now
If the commodity itself proliferates where capitalism initially prevails, derivatives
lead the charge when finance dominates. Derivatives can be construed narrowly as
technical instruments of contemporary finance, but also as emblematic of the

[192] Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014

complex of historical logics of motion and social relations that shape present cir-
cumstances. In the first, technical sense that obtains within financial services, de-
rivatives are conventionally understood as contracts to exchange a certain amount
of something at a determinate future time at an agreed upon price. For example, a
furniture manufacturer in Europe is making tables for a U.S. retailer that will be
ready in six months and will charge a million Euros at an exchange rate of a euro
and a half to the dollar. But should that rate change if the dollar appreciates or
goes up against the Euro, the manufacturer stands to lose money when the tables
are ready for shipment. The agreement to exchange at a fixed rate acts as insur-
ance that hedges against this risk. By so doing, the risk, or possibility of a deviant
but predictable outcome is also priced through a contract that can be exchanged,
and therefore becomes an instrument of investment. The sale of tables can be sub-
ject not only to currency fluctuations, but also to the possible cancellation of the
order, or a banks inability to pay, or any number of other circumstances for
which derivative contracts can also be generated. Each potential failure to execute
the contract at full notional or face value can be hedged through a derivative con-
tract. As a consequence, the sum total of all derivative contracts far exceeds the
actual or underlying price of the assets being traded. As global transactions have
increased, more and more kinds of risk are priced from exchange and interest
rates, to changes in temperature and the weather. The total notional value of de-
rivative contracts between parties and traded on exchanges has grown enormously
(some 25% per year in the past twenty years) to stand now at over a quadrillion
and a half dollars or nearly twenty-times the worlds gross domestic product
(Bank of International Settlements 2012).
While derivative contracts for agricultural prices have been in existence for
thousands of years, derivatives in their current guise date from the seventies and
began to be traded extensively on formal exchanges in the 1990s. The quantity of
publicly traded derivatives is exceeded by Over the Counter contracts made di-
rectly between parties. The contracts do not terminate the exchange; only small
percentages are actually paid when they come due. Rather, the contracts are kept
open or in ongoing exchange through what are called clearinghouses. The result is
a continuous circulation of debt instruments and a further integration of local pro-
duction into global markets. The advent of increasingly complex mathematical
models since the early 1970s when Merton, Black and Scholes crafted the first
formula for pricing derivatives, and more and more computational capacity to
process ever more intricate trades more quickly are among the technical factors
that has driven this process of expansion (Finel-Honigman 2010).
Of course this standard account from within finance treats growth and expan-
sion as axiomatic to continued business activity. Investment entails risk, tech-
niques have been devised to ameliorate that risk and even profit from it, supply
meets demand and growth results. In this regard, derivative markets are just like
every other, and while the notional values are extraordinary, the actual amounts

Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014 [193]

outstanding through derivative exchanges is considerably smaller ($27 trillion at
the end of 2011, and the trades themselves generating revenue in the tens of bil-
lions), and less than global markets for financial assets like bonds or stocks, which
together exceed $200 trillion (McKinsey 2011). What makes derivatives signifi-
cant is that they trade in risk, but also manufacture risk; they disclose the internal
logic of financial expansion as well as the social entailments of mutual indebted-
ness. Hence, like Marxs account of the commodity, starting with derivatives gets
us to the internal workings of social interdependence that is the basis for society.
As with Marx, this basis is ultimately social and not economic, it is immanent and
not causal; it is an internal relation, and not a platform upon which the rest of so-
ciety is built.
The trick for any critical analysis of finance is how to get from the technical to
the social and historical aspects (LiPuma & Lee 2004). Staying within the tech-
nical finance remains tautological and deterministic, to say nothing of exclusive to
those who make the deals and master the mathematical models. Money that makes
money avoids labor, and is either magical in doing so, deceitful in swindling peo-
ple who do not know any better, or so complex that this world must be left to the
experts. The result is a highly moralistic approach to finance, a wishful impetus
shared across the ideological spectrum to punish the transgressors and bad actors,
and to set things to right by reasonable regulation. As scandal follows scandal,
such moralism does little to rectify what has taken place or reveal much about
how the malfeasance persists a few apples will be pruned and the orchard can
return to its prior splendor. Here a critical social logic of derivatives can be more
fruitful analytically and politically.
There is a rich and varied Marxist literature on the precipitants and conse-
quences of the financial crisis (Albo, Gindin & Panitch 2010; Foster & Magdoff
2009; McNally 2010; Panitch, Albo & Chibber 2010; Wolff 2009) where the fail-
ures of accumulation provide the occasion for a stirring call to political mobiliza-
tion. Marxist analysis of financialization also provide searing accounts of a profit
squeeze (Tabb 2012) or a speculative syndrome of Madoffization (Monaghan &
OFlynn 2012), while the question of how mutual indebtedness itself might create
opportunities for political mobilization is left open. The events of recent years
have made what were taken as special insights into potentially public considera-
tions this at least has been the tantalizing if unrealized promise of crisis. Clearly
there have been all manner of responses from the rebellions in the Arab world to
mobilizations of students and Occupy activists to similarly global displays of re-
action whether Tea Party or coarsely labeled fundamentalisms. The riddles of
what to make of the present, of what continuities and ruptures are evident, of what
opportunities are present have now become especially freighted and call for fur-
ther attention.

[194] Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014

Financial Dominance
Two general claims are made for finance roughly speaking a synchronic one
that it dominates or colonizes other spaces of social and economic life, and a dia-
chronic or conjunctural claim that this power of a particular kind of capital is rela-
tively new and has been consolidated over the past forty years. The distinction is
of course heuristic, there is no clear demarcation between what belongs to space
and what to time, yet it remains useful to conceive of how financial logics are
asserted throughout society and how they have come to be. There are several
measures of what dominance entails. The most general would be the value of as-
sets held by financial versus industrial firms, as this would be a standard indicator
of how economic activity is distributed. Since the early 1970s, the vault of finan-
cial activities has exceeded the value of industrial products (Guttmann 1994). On
the eve of the financial crisis in 2007, 40% of profits came from financial ser-
vices, up from 7% at the end of the Second World War (Krippner 2011). The im-
pact on the global economy of the failure of collateralized debt obligations tied to
subprime mortgages is taken as further evidence of the extent to which finance
prevails over productive activity. This increasing prominence of financial motives
and markets is described as financialization (Epstein 2006). Dominance however
is a stronger claim than relative growth or redistribution from one sector of the
economy to another. Rather there is a sense that finance colonizes or orients all
other activity. This comports with other accounts of a post-industrial society, in
which the emphasis on producing physical or material commodities centered on
key industries of steel, oil and automobiles gives way to immaterial or nonphysi-
cal entities (Bell 1973; Moulier Boutang 2011).
While these broad indicators are useful in drawing attention to the increasing
space occupied by finance, they may not go as far in clarifying what this shift sig-
nifies. The notion that the locus of economic activity has moved from one sector
to another is belied by the increasing integration between industrial production
and circuits of credit and debt that are part and parcel of the recent ascent of fi-
nance. The most profitable division of General Motors came to be its financing of
automobiles through the General Motors Accounting Corporation (GMAC, now
Ally Bank). A similar trend held for General Electric, through GE Capital. Yet in
neither case is this simply a matter of shifting from industrial production to fi-
nance, but rather an extension of credit to labor to compensate for declining wages
and benefits, and integration through firms of various operations of capital.
Marx had observed the tendency for increased concentration or monopolization
of a given line of business in fewer and fewer enterprises, and a centralization of
various economic activities among ever-larger conglomerates (Marx 1867/1967a).
He saw finance, then expressed through the emergence of the joint stock corpora-
tion, as furthering this socialization or interdependence of capital as well as the
associated functions of the producers. Cars and refrigerators are, after all, con-

Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014 [195]

sumer products--use values that are realized not simply over the duration of their
operation, but over the period in which they are paid for with interest. Labors
capacity to serve as a medium of circulation for this credit economy renders it part
of the realization of value but also of the extension and elaboration of financial
services. Participation in these debt relations means that labor is also exposed to
and must manage the risks that these markets bear. Labor is thereby exposed not
only to risks of unemployment, declining wages, or ill health that emanate from
work; now it is subject to risks of capital circulation and realization, to which it
provides a second shift, as deferred wages, but compelled to pursue for access to
expanded costs of reproduction like education and retirement. The labor of this
second shift consists of all the research, information, and deliberation that adds
value and maintains circulation for financial capital. Expanding these terms of
participation, as was the case for home ownership through subprime mortgages,
subjects labor more fully to the circulation of capital and its volatile processes of
realization.
Labors incorporation into the circuits of realization of capital points to the
way in which financialization is itself a framework for crafting new frontiers of
accumulation internal to capitalist social relations. Just as colonialism and enclo-
sure of common feudal lands forced populations into market relations that chan-
neled them into wage labor, and consumer markets and personal credit delivered
workers to the products of their production, financialization extended the risk op-
erations of capital to labor within the very spaces of social reproduction, the
home, school, health care, retirement, once treated as separate and secure from
market machinations. Just as for capital, financialization does not simply transfer
production into circulation but brings the two closer together, not only consump-
tion and activities of social reproduction, but the activity of labor itself becomes
part of larger financial circuits (Martin 2002).

The Social Logic of the Derivative

The social logic of the derivative has a special role to play in rendering capitals
commensurate with one another. The derivative not only subjects local production
to global market vacillations, but places labor in the crosshairs of potential risk
exposures. Indeed, part of the reason that unemployment has remained so stub-
bornly high after 2008 is that employers are using their existing work force as a
buffer against future or potential market risks, like increased taxes, tightening
credit, or a change in the regulatory environment. The reluctance to hire is then
translated back to the existing workforce as an expectation of higher productivity.
Indeed, increased profit rates have been extracted through productivity demands
that make labor bear these market risks (Bryan & Rafferty 2006). The derivative
in this respect does not simply hedge against a potential outcome, but treats that
possible future outcome as something that can be acted upon in present real time.

[196] Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014

 These protocols of risk assessment are not therefore restricted to the operations
of financial services, but have become a more generalized approach to the man-
agement of any organizational process. School children are continuously tested;
those in need of social services are tested; credit profiles are continuously adjusted
populations are sorted and ranked according to their expected outcomes of risk
and failure and public policy operates through and is crafted accordingly. It is not
simply that resources once separated as public and private are now allocated
through market mechanisms, but that each instance of exchange is already as-
signed a risk market before the activity in question childhood, hunger, ill health,
even death comes due (Blackburn 2002). In this respect, financialization is not a
total departure from earlier processes of accumulation. Rather, it deepens, ex-
tends, and intensifies an array of spaces whose autonomy and integrity it violates,
whose boundaries it crosses, through an imposed and imposing association.
Now as in other processes of association, interdependence does not mean ho-
mogenization, flattening, or smoothing out, as was claimed in the conventional
account of globalization (Friedman 2006). This is both because the energies and
efficacies of slavery and colonialism, industrial manufacture and wage labor, are
far from spent, but also because derivatives themselves constantly parse and sepa-
rate, and make much from what other would be minor differences in price or fluc-
tuations in market circumstances. Financialization then, is ultimately not simply
more finance everywhere, but also more socialization, more interdependence,
more mutual debt.
Marx keenly observed that occasions and opportunities for accumulation were
pursued around the world and those spatial arrangements were themselves trans-
formed in the process the aphorism all thats solid, melts into air captures this
poignantly (Marx & Engels 2002). The solidity that appears to have melted for
many (clearly for many more it was never there to begin with) is the sense of se-
curity that government would protect them from the excesses of the marketplace,
and that a horizon of ever expanding affluence would animate a secular dream
space called the middle class would deliver them to a steadily more promising
future. Recall that the Communist Manifesto offers a paean to the dissolution of
small property holders, and this theme of class decomposition is explored as well
in the 18th Brumaire where Marx ties the weak socialization of the French peas-
antry to the authoritarian and violent, even self-destructive rampages of the Bona-
partist state (Marx & Engels 1848/2002; Marx 1852/1969). To the contemporary
dysfunctions of government and the dimming horizons of white male middle class
privilege, we might inquire as to what socialization of the sort imagined here
means for relations of state and class. Doing so would compel a confrontation
with what is decomposing and what being formed in the present conjuncture that
would deepen an understanding of what it means for finance to dominate.
Perhaps the most potent critical analytic trope for naming the dominance of
markets over every aspect of life is neoliberalism (Harvey 2007). As much as the

Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014 [197]

term has served as a rallying cry for all that ails us, its use has tended to collapse
an ideology that markets rule, with an acceptance of their victory in doing so and
popular accommodation to this formation of power. The danger of proclaiming
neoliberalisms success in these terms is in effect a critical version of Thatchers
there is no alternative (TINA). Maintaining the critical optic while crafting ana-
lytic openings to opposition and alternatives would entail challenging the key
terms of privatization and deregulation. Financialization in general and derivatives
in particular may be of some service here, especially in the aftermath of the mas-
sive bailouts. Far from government getting out of markets, the imagined border
that polices the distinction between polity and economy appeared to be violated
when public coffers were offered as collateral to market failure. The U.S. gov-
ernment, through the Troubled Asset Relief Program, purchased stock expecting
to profit without imposing mandates of ownership. And yet this act was far from a
single magnanimous gesture, indeed the positioning of government on the part of
presidents of both parties as the enemy of free enterprise has been used largely to
replace entitlement programs with support of investors by means of regressive tax
cuts (although certainly progressive for capital and its largest beneficiaries).

Toward Disintermediation
This shift from defined benefit to defined contribution public policy approaches
terms that come from the world of pensions which indicate the shift from a guar-
anteed annual income at retirement (which most pensions were at the end of the
1960s) to the advent of self-management through investment portfolios whose
paltry returns for most are hardly a means of retirement. Now these once public
goods of health, education and affordable housing, are themselves treated as in-
vestments, and citizenship is converted to a gambit of pay-to-play. Derivatives are
of course all around these various investment-based goods, with student loan de-
fault swaps and securitizations of supplemental health care, to say nothing of col-
lateralized debt obligations that borrow default rankings and trade them for differ-
ent risk profiles. If privatization was really about crafting certain kinds of publics
and social participation through government intervention, plowing the fields of
finance proceeded not by deregulation, but through massive pilings of rules. Dur-
ing the reign of neoliberalism, through Republican and Democratic administra-
tions alike, the Federal Register, official rulebook of the United States has swelled
in girth (Roubini & Mihm 2010: 200-215).
But the fact that there are more rules than ever before, something consistent
with the effervescent spirit of capitalism, becomes for finance, a factor of produc-
tion, part of its materiality that can be factored as regulatory risk that banks could
exchange on the basis of different appraisals of their legally versus actually re-
quired money reserves. The institutional effect of deregulation in financial ser-
vices, whether for savings and loans in the 1980s or erasing the boundary between

[198] Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014

commercial and investment banking (codified in the depression era Glass-Steagall
legislation), was to affect something called disintermediation. Disintermediation
entails removing the exclusionary mandate of institutions that can legitimately
broker financial dealings. Hence, many kinds of institutions can lend money, gen-
erate financial contracts (like OTC derivatives), or construct and sell bonds.
Disintermediation is a financial term for socialization of capital, for it means
that the field of economic activity becomes more porous, open to more and more
actors working from ever more complex webs of rules and risks. In light of this,
privatization and deregulation could be renamed as processes of political and eco-
nomic disintermediation, respectively. Investor-based, defined contribution,
means-tested protocols for participation in decision-making aided and abetting
through government acting as a medium for redistribution of wealth to the
wealthy through tax cuts, renders those whose decisions affect the common good,
de facto state actors. Government, however is not simply getting out of the econ-
omy, but creating conditions of political disintermediation, where those best posi-
tioned to do so make political decisions as to how public funds (deferred or real-
located tax monies) are to be allocated but also what kinds of decisions will serve
as the models upon which the expected life course will proceed. Private or charter
schooling, home ownership, private health care and retirement accounts would be
part and parcel of this.

Derivative Class
While financialization socializes capital in particular ways, it also promotes a spe-
cific class. Indeed, the professional managerial class (PMC) displays many of the
contradictory features of the petit bourgeoisie of Marxs day (Wright 1997). In the
fable of post-industrialism after WWII, the PMC would serve as the class to end
all classes, the clean, non-contentious, fully corporate and integrated individual in
the white collar and gray flannel suit. The government policies that would allocate
suburban homes to returning G.I.s would also build the public educational infra-
structure that would train a new generation of knowledge-based professionals.
While clearly racially and gender based, this was to be a new social compact that
claimed those who gained credentialed expertise through access to higher educa-
tion would come to govern the terms of their employment as professionals whose
careers guaranteed steady progress in status and income. While more can be
counted in the ranks of the PMC than ever before, the compact around profession-
al autonomy is eroding not only for the professoriate who see tenure receding in
their rear-view mirrors, but for physicians working in managed care and attorneys
casualized through the dismantling of partner-based firms. Even financial services
left many of its children behind when the going got rough. This is on the one
hand, a story of security turning to risk par excellence, but it is also an account of
the proletarianization or socialization of the professions. The performance-based

Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014 [199]

test-driven, continuously assessed measures of life now define the professions
more than their purportedly less noble kindred occupations. Doctors, lawyers,
financiers all face the specter of do-it-yourself challenges to the monopoly of le-
gitimate knowledge that once was managed autonomously and is now increasing-
ly managed for them (Martin 2011; Brook 2012).
In this, the fate of professionals is tied less to their particular expertise than to
the increasingly common protocols by which their work is attributed with worth.
The irony of course is that theirs was the technical knowledge that made their own
colonization possible, and theirs was the popular enthusiasm that made escalations
of risk and reward the coin of the realm. At this point the derivative needs to be
brought back in as a key figure in moving across these realms of autonomy lost
and risk measurement found. Certainly professionals are not suddenly unified as
one, doing the same thing at the same time, but something has happened to their
means of ascertaining their worth, of governing the sobriety of their senses that
relates certain attributes of their experience in ways that are leveraged across their
respective situations.
The stars, celebrities, market-makers, and outliers have stripped away the grey
flannel and oriented their gaze away from the norm, median and central tendency
of their heretofore rational existence and oriented them toward the few that got
away. While the wealthiest may still hold their islands, the figure of this success is
projected as the hypermobile, unattached, and impermanently anointed Davos
Man, a specter of volatility where privilege has its memberships but these come
pre-stamped with expiration dates and must be used immediately (Rothkopf
2008). In opposition to this sensibility of placeless elite, living spaces, streets and
squares are inhabited by the multitudes act to reinvest what has been spirited
away.

Financial Difference
Seen from the perspective of the derivative, dominance is both far and near, huge-
ly scaled and intimate, so much explanatory power is being asked of these mas-
sive aggregations of small differences, minor fluctuations, and persistent volatili-
ties. Certainly this narrative can quickly become a bit breathless. How could
something derivative matter so much, could it really make all this difference? Just
as there is a danger in over-consolidating an account of dominance so that re-
sistance is futile, there is a temptation to proclaim an entirely new world from
what could seem the top of a stack of turtles. There is certainly something new in
these times, but much that is old and continuous as well. New forces are launched
but few ever really disappear. Despite centuries of proletarianization, several bil-
lion souls remain tied to the land for their subsistence, and irrespective of the
soaring knowledge economy, many, including those tethered to a keyboard still
work with their hands. How then to make good on this caution regarding the ever

[200] Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014

forward march of time that casts its own amnesia on all the other temporal traces
in its midst?
A key strategy here has been to remember what Marx saw and said when he
regarded his world, and to extend his approach to imagine ways of understanding
a capitalism that is itself in motion. While the imperative to accumulate is un-
dimmed and the socializing effects making the world over to wealth are ever more
expansive, capitalism itself is not an internally closed machine, a system that con-
tinues to run until it breaks down. For many around the world, capitalism never
worked to begin with, or continues to fail them through exploitation and misery,
or simply a denial of access to its vast resources and the politics of how they
might be devised and deployed. The system metaphor, which is not part of Marxs
own analytic vocabulary but has been spirited into many a Marxist account by
means of conventional social science, betrays the functionalism of well-purposed
parts serving to maintain the overall operation of the whole. Rupture, burst bub-
bles, crisis, even revolution would be conceived as catastrophic moments of total
departure that set history on a new course (Parsons 1955; Edwards, Reich &
Weiskopf 1972; Brenner 2006).
Marxs own dialectics grasps social relations in fluid motion but with a par-
ticular trajectory of transformation in mind so as to not collapse social and politi-
cal revolution (Marx 1867/1967a). History is made from the received weight of
encountered circumstances. In the straightforward circuit of accumulation, these
historical encumbrances disappear, the commodity labor power is concealed and
the surplus it generates expressed in the increased magnitude of capital. In one
way, derivatives follow this logic. They are detached from their underlying com-
modities or assets and traded independently as attributes of those original com-
modities. But in another respect, the underlying continues to weigh like a night-
mare on the brain of the living in Marxs vivid phrase (Marx 1852/1969). Pro-
duction is amplified not curtailed through derivative trading, and conversely,
when the derivative risk is realized, the underlying is also effected. This was cer-
tainly what the subprime dynamics demonstrated; namely, that collecting risk
attributes stimulated housing construction, but also shut it down when prices fell
short.

Risking Space and Time

If derivatives are a central instrument of risk management, then the generalized
turn to acting upon risk differentials speaks to this more engaged relation between
what has been and what could be, between continuity and change. In this the de-
rivative augurs a different temporal sensibility than the smoothly progressive time
of commodity accumulation, of one magnitude added to another that underpins
the conception of growth. Clearly much economic activity is still oriented by and
calibrated through linear progressive time. Households, firms, nations remain ro-

Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014 [201]

bust social and statistical categories. Calendars and second hands have yet to be
abolished. Rather, if linear time is the underlying pulse of the capitalist calculus,
variations of speed, duration, and scale act upon what were once treated as the
stable markers of past, present, and future (Zerubavel 1981). The promise that the
future would be different and better than the present, that it would be allochronic
or an other time, had been capitals claim for progress, but also for its own version
of utopia that market growth would deliver populations from want and univer-
salize prosperity (Fabian 1983). The insistence on deficit reduction over stimulus
would seem to reflect a flight from a utopian future and a universalistic claim that
all could get to this better place together. Instead, utopian claims are inverted, and
future promises must be sacrificed to present debts.
The derivative makes certain aspects of the future actionable in the present. Ra-
ther than abiding an anticipatory mode scanning the temporal horizon for oppor-
tunity, trying to get out ahead in the race, the future does not exist as something
absolutely different from the present, but actions taken now are meant to form
what that future could be. Pre-emption hence becomes a key policy logic, whether
this applies to the Federal Reserve Boards altering of interest rates on signs of
changes to inflation and unemployment, or the invasion and occupation of coun-
tries before a threat to security can manifest (the doctrine for the Global War on
Terror) (Martin 2007). This radical constructivism, intervening with a targeted
intervention on some risk factor in order to prevent or mitigate the negative ef-
fects of an unwanted occurrence before it takes place has been described as a kind
of performativity (MacKenzie 2006). The pre-emptive signal in the present is
meant to bring about the desired future state. Needless to say, derivatives not only
manage risk, they also amplify risk opportunities. The Federal Reserve and the
Federal Government has become more interventionist in pursuit of economic and
political security. Yet doing so has had perverse effects.

Algorithms of Volatility
Modeling behavior, even on the basis of complex algebraic equations, imagines
the future to consist of an array of discrete outcomes and independent variables
that have no will or at least parallel capacity to read the signs around them. Yet
volatility creates not only more risk that can be priced and acted upon, but also
more uncertainty, and unknowable circumstances that elude the methods of fore-
casting and recognition. The collective effect of so many acting upon and antici-
pating signs and signals amplifies uncertainty and generates opacity in contrast
to the model of decision that posits a lone rational actor who stands outside and is
independent of observable phenomenon, and can therefore predict the future. To
the spatial unevenness of development in different parts of the world in which the
capacities of the margins are sacrificed to the enrichment of the center, the deriva-
tive logic adds variegated times where present, near and long-term collide.

[202] Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014

 The future is not one unbroken horizon, it is not approached steadily, and it
does not open before us. The actionable future stitches together many durational
terms, as it continues to trade in these multiple times, deferring closure, keeping
the deal in motion. Finance, however does not simply consolidate these various
time frames, it also disburses and disarticulates the beginning and ending of when
a good is made, and when it can generate a revenue stream. As such, the deriva-
tive breaks-up the integrity of all manner of productive units, keeps them flowing,
but also maintains and depends upon the underlying values capacity to generate
something productive.

Derivative Materiality
Derivatives are not less material or physical, but they violate what had been the
integrity of material and physical forms in space and time. One symptom of this
violation is the collapse of the distinction in the financial world between invest-
ment and speculation (Bogle 2012). Supposedly, investment was a decision to
allocate capital on the prospect of a long-term perspective for growth, and specu-
lation was an orientation toward short-term gain. The villains would be sharehold-
er value, mergers and acquisitions, short-selling, and the bevy of greed-mongering
financiers whose only interest was in arbitrage, not in creating real worth in com-
panies.
There is no doubt a moralistic tenor to these assessments of current woes that
conceals an analytic challenge. The distinction between investment and specula-
tion is typically made in hindsight with the former associated with the growth it
predicts, and the latter tarred with loss. But if the derivative slices and dices not
only whole units into bits and pieces but the flow and order of time as well, then
the very distinction between short and long term upon which investment is sepa-
rated from speculation would tend to implode as well. Development, after all is a
combination of smoothly expanding volume (growth) and linear time (progress),
in which primitives are to imitate the mature moderns in order to achieve the
promised land of the future. Origins can be many, but the developmental path will
not diverge.
If it was not apparent in the emergence of financial dominance over the past
forty years, after the global bailout of finance, these promises and the populations
enclosed through them have met a sturdy indifference. It is important, however,
not to maintain all focus on the vagaries of capital. The long march of colonialism
that drove capitalist expansion worldwide proceeded through these various enclo-
sures: of communal lands to propertied estates, open territories into bounded na-
tions states, and persons into the self-possessed beings called individuals. And yet
colonialism bears its own counter-history, its often transgressive and creative pro-
cess whereby the colonies are re- or mis-appropriated, where associations are di-
rected toward ends other than the dull mandates of accumulation. The United

Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014 [203]

States and Haiti both emerge through national de-colonization which would in-
spire liberationist impulses for centuries to come. Socialist, communist, anarchist
movements arise through various sunderings of the integrity of wage labor.
Movements around identity, difference, need, desire, sense and nature, would all
erupt as the private sphere of social reproduction was itself ruptured by socializing
productive activity in a refusal of the voiceless subject without political agency,
but also an expansion of the sphere of the political as such.

From Decolonization
The three vectors of decolonization named here: of the times and spaces of territo-
ry, production, and social reproduction, constitute the conjuncture in Fredric
Jamesons (1984) formulation of what would become the various social move-
ments of the 1960s. In Giovanni Arrighis (1994) seminal study of the successive
historical conjunctures of financialization as the geo-political axis of capital ac-
cumulation shifted from The Netherlands, to England to the United States, two
dramatic internal shifts take place. One is an explosion of financial activity that
proves ruinous to the extant social order, and the other is a dramatic strain on the
social compact that attached to the particular middle class. The current inflection
of this strain would attach to what was discussed earlier in terms of the profes-
sional managerial class and its attendant expansion in number and decomposition
of its forms of solidarity and autonomy. The international financial architecture
devised by John Maynard Keynes and his cohort at the end of the Second World
War known by the New Hampshire resort of Bretton Woods where the plans were
drafted was certainly an effort to introduce financial colonization of the globe
through the sovereignty of a single currency, the dollar. The seventies recession
and the fall of Bretton Woods that brought the sixties impulses to a close provided
a basis for financialization. While OPEC and Eurodollars are assigned culpability
for making dollar sovereignty unsustainable, the larger inability to contain the
flows of currency can also be taken as decolonization in its own right.
By decentering the account of financialization the expression in financial flows
of the wider currents in social relations starts to emerge and the appraisal of the
politic landscape of the past forty years also shifts appreciably. Rather than unmit-
igated failure and defeat at the hands of a triumphant neoliberalism, the optic of a
derivative logic provides a far more uneven assessment. The decolonization of
territory, labor and social reproduction seemed to have passed with the heady days
of the early seventies (with the victory in Vietnam, a renaissance of socialist theo-
ry and practice, radical and substantive reforms driven by the equality and differ-
ence agendas of gender, sexuality, race, environmental and other movements). Yet
the longer view is that these contestations and movements never went away, and
that they continue in their expressions, albeit without the same clarity of assess-

[204] Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014

ment and valuation that accompanied their earlier appearance under the sign of
unalloyed freedom (i.e. movements for liberation) (Young 2001).
This last problem, of how to value existing mobilizations, if there is evidence
that the horizons of the political have not in fact receded, returns us to the ques-
tion of the derivative, but now as an analytic term. One purpose in seeing financial
derivatives as a response to movements of decolonization is that it allows us to re-
value what otherwise might be dismissed as fragmentary, disunifying, or generally
insufficient in the political responses to the circumstances at hand. Just what
would such a derivative approach to a valuation of the political consist of? At-
tending to that question, necessitates a return to and re-invention of the question
of debt.

Financial Debt
As with finance itself, the sums and magnitude of debt now receive increasing
public attention. Student debt in the U.S. at over $ 1 trillion has surpassed credit
card debt, ignited a debt refusal movement with a more militant tone than the debt
forgiveness appeals to Congress that have made the rounds over the past decade
(Occupy Student Debt Campaign 2012). The idea of a debt moratorium, champi-
oned by Fidel Castro and other so-called debtor nations during the 1980s has both
been complicated by the United States itself assuming the mantle of the largest
debtor, but also of a geographical fluidity across countries of publics who are
asked to make sacrifices of development, retirement, infrastructure or other mark-
ings of the social economy to the perquisites of capital accumulation. In many
ways, debt bondage has replaced development as the promised route out of pov-
erty. Payday lending, microfinance, credit profiling, all become part of the expan-
sion of large financial services and carry with them a critique of what they see as
the moralism of public assistance. They trumpet their own moralistic claims that
indenture to profit-taking investors is a more noble form of self-sufficiency (Roy
2010). The sorting of legitimate and illegitimate debt justifies the limits to small
business underwritten by large multinationals in lieu of general social benefits.
Already those who had championed microfinance are suggesting that at 150 mil-
lion small enterprises, the approach may have reached its limits as to how many
more can be drawn into its debt circuits (Rosenberg 2011). Similar moral assign-
ments of blame were heard through the subprime debt process that those who
signed mortgage agreements did so as responsible adults, or that they had no busi-
ness assuming more debt than they could pay, or that their profligacy made the
world unsafe for everyone else.

Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014 [205]

Moral Economies
Two temporalities of moralism tend to separate debts of capital from those of la-
bor. The large bank and corporate bailouts triggered the concern of moral hazard;
namely that publicly funded bailouts would reward bad behavior and prompt the
bad actors to repeat their mistakes rather than taking their licks from the purifying
stream of market discipline. Yet these consternations are invariably voiced after
the fact of massive public assistance. Corporate aid is treated the general will, as if
were action not taken, the whole economy would be effected. With deals struck
behind closed doors and little evidence presented as to how the public good would
be served by the rescued firms, the transparency said to be part of democratic de-
liberation is absent and the rectitude of the decision is a fait accompli. For what is
typically referred to as consumer debt, all norms of culpability remain in force, as
these are the actions of willful knowing individuals, not those blindsided by the
invisible hand of the market. Yet there is a persistent anxiety among those who
refuse to assist the poor and laboring debtors; namely that in doing so they would
cease to act as individuals and morph into an unruly and contentious mass.
The fear of contagion, of bad debt suffocating and sullying the sterile efficien-
cy of markets is known as moral panic (Hall 1978). Whereas moral hazard is
backward looking, moral panic is pre-emptive; a fear of what is to come that must
be punitively thwarted before it gets out of hand. The specter of debts being spo-
ken of not from their disparate sources of origination as so much credit card, or
student loan, or mortgage, or microfinance, or sovereign debt, or government debt
but as social debt as such indicates where a derivative logic may lead us. The
derivative both removes values from their originating sources and aggregates the
total value to which they are attached. The notion of a global face value of debt
begins to get at what it would mean for the derivative dialectic to enter fully into
the public discourse.

Claiming Surplus
The derivative as a social logic directs attention at the debt that can be seen, of the
legers that make explicit what people owe one another. The financial bailout pre-
sented the spectacle of enormous wealth first the $787 billion in Troubled Asset
Relief Program, and eventually what would become the equivalent of the entire
U.S. tax base of $14 trillion dollars offered on behalf of what was considered a
social necessity (Sourcewatch 2012). The terms of exchange for this massive
wealth transfer would be permanent austerity for all manner of social expenditure.
The Occupy movements, but also the ongoing debate over continued Bush era tax
cuts, certainly rendered the question of whose debt a political issue (Graeber
2011; Dienst 2011). But perhaps the more suggestive avenue of debt politics is not
in the direction of blame and refusal as much as these have brought the issue to

[206] Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014

the fore but in a consideration of what it means to be able to suddenly muster
trillions of dollars and to undertake a public deliberation over what might be done
with a social surplus that was never acknowledged as such to be one. Permeating
all aspects of social life with metrics of risk not only shifted burdens for social
production from government security programs onto individuals as managers of
their own fates (Hacker 2006); it also created a vast second shift of risk productive
activity as well as a nascent literacy in the face of a manufactured illiteracy
around what finance is and does.
In one respect, the derivative is the pure idiom of the numerate vision of social
life: that all outcomes and appreciations can be calculated, foretold, made legible,
and acted upon. Once wealth is presented in the aggregate and a language exists
for making claims upon this mountain of debt made in common, questions of ine-
quality and therefore of redistribution can be brought to the fore. That which is
invisible can be rendered transparent; that which is frozen in the vaults of private
equity, hedge funds, proprietary trading, can be released to liquidity. This is cer-
tainly a way of understanding the politics of debt refusal on the one hand and the
refusal to lend, invest or employ that marks the current capital strike. The differ-
ence is that now the illiquidity of capital confronts the fact of a social surplus that
was explicitly assigned to get the economy moving again.

A Politics of Excess
But the derivative is not simply a process of making money appear as self-
expansive and therefore to direct collective attention to the universe of number.
The derivative also unbundles what was bound and treated as an integral, indivisi-
ble unit, an isolated monad, and interweaves, associates and renders these circulat-
ing attributes as implicated in one anothers fates. This is not a matter of the debt
that can be seen, but of a debt that is sensed. Identity, or derivative attributes of
selfhood, it can be observed is borne through bodies, not simply marked on the
surface, but detectable in ways of moving, of shared sensibilities, but also of crea-
tive and emergent stylistic innovations. Certainly these attributes that comprise
styles are also crucial to the expansion of cultural commodities, the imperative to
look to identity through personal collection and social consumption.
If for capital, this cultural turn has been a factor in the expansion of consumer
debt, also apparent is the expanded realm of political demands, of equal rights
surely, but also of recognition of difference that augur an expansion of social
forms as such. Taken together as part of the broader movements of decoloniza-
tion, a significant outcome is the expansion of social indebtedness as what eludes,
escapes, and exceeds measure. Hence, the anxieties over the mobilizing masses,
the concerns of contagion that attach to moral panics, register an unseen debt and
expanding sociality to sets capital to flight. If accessing the social surplus prompts
a resolution of the liquidity crisis through which more just distributions of wealth

Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014 [207]

might be made; there is also the risk of an insolvency crisis, an inability to trace
through all of the circuits of debt in order to find the value there. The greatest con-
tradiction of the derivative has been to efface the distinction between illiquidity
and insolvency, to make it impossible to know whether valuable assets exist but
cannot be sold, or whether say, home mortgages are so under water, the prices
have declined so steeply, that all value has escaped the vault that had held it but
to where did it escape?

Conclusion
The derivative brings attention to the excess of the social as the very basis for new
needs, demands, and desires that shape the political horizon. Such excess gener-
ates not a clear object that can be seen, but opacity, an unrecorded debt precisely
of the sort that Marx named for the commodity labor power. Again, one direction
of that labors surplus was reclaimed as surplus value, but another becomes the
basis for the continuous effort to reduce, elude, contain the debt to labor that
yields the tendency for the rate of profit to fall. The derivative points to the ways
in which finance, which seemed to be sheer self-expanding quantity, of money
making money, also bears the internal relations of socializing labor through com-
modity production. If the derivative performs such a double session of the social;
of surplus value and an excess of the social itself, then the politics of debt would
consist in rearticulating these two moments. One is where debt is refused in order
to make a claim upon it. Another where debt is embraced in order to be claimed
by the abundant sociality that ultimately decides what the wealth of a given socie-
ty might be if it is to be a society of the producers. Re-aligning and re-valuing
the relation between abundance and excess would perhaps open the horizon of
communism that the derivative poses.

Randy Martin is professor and chair of Art and Public Policy, New York Univer-
sity and director of the graduate program in arts politics. He is author of Perfor-
mance as Political Act: The Embodied Self; Socialist Ensembles: Theater and
State in Cuba and Nicaragua; Critical Moves: Dance Studies in Theory and Poli-
tics; On Your Marx: Relinking Socialism and the Left; Financialization of Daily
Life; An Empire of Indifference: American War and the Financial Logic of Risk
Management; Under New Management: Universities, Administrative Labor and
the Professional Turn . E-mail: [email protected]

[208] Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014

References
Albo, Greg, Sam Gindin & Leo Panitch (2010): In and Out of Crisis: The Global Financial Melt-
down and Left Alternatives, Oakland: Spectre.
Arrighi, Giovanni (1994): The Long Twentieth Century: Money, Power and the Origin of Our
Times, London: Verso.
Bank of International Settlements (2012): http://www.bis.org/statistics/derstats.htm (accessed 15
August 2012).
Bell, Daniel (1973): The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting, New
York: Basic Books.
Blackburn, Robin (2002): Banking on Death, or, Investing in Life: The History and Future of Pen-
sions, London, Verso.
Bogle, John (2012): Clash of the Cultures: Investment Vs Speculation, New York: Wiley.
Brenner, Robert (2006): The Economics of Global Turbulence: The Advanced Capitalist Econo-
mies from Long Boom to Long Downturn, 1945-2005, London: Verso, 2006.
Brooks, Robert Andrew (2012): Cheaper By the Hour: Temporary Lawyers and the Deprofession-
alization of the Law, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Brown, Brendan (1987): The Flight of International Capital: A Contemporary History, London:
Croom Helm.
Brown, Michael E. (1986): The Production of Society: A Marxian Foundation for Social Theory,
Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.
Bryan, Dick and Mike Rafferty (2006): Capitalism With Derivatives: A Political Economy of Fi-
nancial Derivatives, Capital and Class, Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan.
Dienst, Richard (2011): The Bonds of Debt, London: Verso.
Edwards Richard, Michael Reich & Thomas Weiskopf (1972): The Capitalist System: A Radical
Analysis of American Society, Engelwood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Epstein, Gerald (2005): Financialization and the World Economy, Northhampton, MA: Edward
Elgar.
Fabian, Johannes (1983): Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes Its Object, New York:
Columbia University Press.
Finel-Honigman, Irene (2010): A Cultural History of Finance, New York: Routledge.
Foster, John Bellamy & Fred Magdoff (2009): The Great Financial Crisis: Causes and Conse-
quences, New York: Monthly Review Press.
Friedman, Thomas (2006): The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century, New
York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.
Graeber, David (2011): Debt: The First 5,000 Years, Brooklyn: Melville House.
Guttmann, Robert (1994): How Credit Money Shapes the Economy: The United States in a Global
System, Armonk, NY: M E Sharpe.
Hacker, Jacob (2006): The Great Risk Shift: The Assault on American Jobs, Families, Health
Care, and Retirement and How You Can Fight Back, New York: Oxford University Press.
Hall, Stuart (1978): Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State, and Law and Order, New York:
Holmes and Meier.
Harvey, David (2007): A Brief History of Neoliberalism, New York: Oxford University Press.
Harvey, David (1999): The Limits to Capital, London: Verso.
Jameson, Fredric (1984): Periodizing the Sixties, Sohnya Sayres, Sanders Stephanson, Stanley
Aronowitz & Frederic Jameson (eds): The Sixties Without Apology, Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Krippner, Greta (2011): Capitalizing on Crisis: The Political Origins of the Rise of Finance, Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Moulier Boutang, Yann (2011): Cognitive Capitalism, Cambridge: Polity.
Lipuma, Edward & Benjamin Lee (2004): Financial Derivatives and the Globalization of Risk,
Durham: Duke University Press.
MacKenzie, Donald (2006): An Engine Not a Camera: How Financial Models Shape Markets,
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Martin, Randy (2002): Financialization of Daily Life, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014 [209]

------ (2007): An Empire of Indifference: American War and the Financial Logic of Risk Manage-
ment, Durham: Duke University Press.
------ (2011): Under New Management: Universities, Administrative Labor and the Professional
Turn, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Marx, Karl (1852/1969): Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, New York: International Pub-
lishers.
------ (1867/1967a): Capital: A Critique of Political Economy Volume 1, New York: International
Publishers.
------ (1894/1967b): Capital Volume III The Process of Capitalist Production as a Whole, New
York: International Publishers.
Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels (1848/2002): The Communist Manifesto, London: Penguin.
McKinsey (2011): Mapping Global Capital Markets, 2011:
http://www.mckinsey.com/Insights/MGI/Research/Financial_Markets/Mapping_global_capital
_markets_2011 (accessed 15 August 2012).
McNally, David (2010): Global Slump: The Economics and Politics of Crisis and Resistance,
Oakland: Spectre.
Monaghan L and M OFlynn (2012): The Madoffization of Society: A Corrosive Process in an
Age of Fictitious Capital, Critical Sociology, 39:6, 869-887 (Published Online July 2012):
http://crs.sagepub.com/content/39/6/869.full.pdf+html (accessed 15 January 2014).
Occupy Student Debt Campaign (2012): http://www.occupystudentdebtcampaign.org (accessed 15
August 2012).
Panitch, Leo, Greg Albo & Vivek Chibber (2010): The Crisis This Time: Socialist Register 2011,
New York: Monthly Review Press.
Parsons, Talcott (1955): The Social System, New York: Free Press.
Perelman, Michael (2000): The Invention of Capitalism: Classical Political Economy and the
Secret History of Primitive Accumulation, Durham: Duke University Press.
Rosenberg, Richard (2011): Is Microcredit Over-Indebtedness a Worldwide Problem?,
Http://microfinance.cgap.org/2011/11/07/is-microcredit-over-indebtedness-a-worldwide-
problem/ (accessed 20 August 2012).
Rothkopf, David (2008): Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They are Making,
New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.
Roubini, Nouriel & Stephen Mihm (2010): Crisis Economics: A Crash Course in The Future of
Finance, New York: Penguin.
Roy, Ananya (2010): Poverty Capital: Microfinance and the Making of Development, New York:
Routledge.
Soederberg, Susanne (2011): Canibalistic Capitalism: The Paradoxes of Neoliberal Pension Secu-
ritization, Panitch Leo, Greg Albo & Vivek Chibber (eds): The Crisis This Time: Socialist
Register 2011, New York: Monthly Review Press.
Sourcewatch (2012): Total Wall Street Bailout Cost:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Total_Wall_Street_Bailout_Cost (15 August
2012).
Tabb, William (2012): The Restructuring of Capitalism in Our Time, New York: Columbia Uni-
versity Press.
Wolff, Richard (2009): Capitalism Hits the Fan: The Global Economic Meltdown and What to Do
About It, Olive Branch Press.
Wright, Erik Olin (1997): Classes, London: Verso.
Young, Robert (2001): Postcolonialism: An Historical Introduction, Oxford: Blackwell Publish-
ers.
Zerubavel, Eviatar (1981): Hidden Rhythms: Schedules and Calendars in Social Life, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

[210] Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014