Komorzynski’s treatise treats credit not as a merely juridical loan relation, nor as a technical appendage of money, but as a fundamental form of private-economic circulation. Its central thesis is that the “economic essence” of credit can only be grasped after reconstructing the institutions within which it operates: private property, separate household-enterprises, wealth, capital, and income. Credit belongs to the same broad sphere as exchange, because both are ways in which privately separated economic units re-enter social cooperation.
Credit und Tausch bilden zwei verschiedene eigenartige Gestaltungen dieses Verkehres.
English translation: Credit and exchange constitute two different, distinctive forms of this intercourse.
This sentence marks the conceptual hinge of the work. Private property divides society into distinct “Sonderwirtschaften,” each controlling its own means and aims; economic “Verkehr” then reconnects them without abolishing that separation. Exchange corrects one kind of mismatch in the distribution of goods; credit corrects another, especially the temporal mismatch between present command over resources and future productive or income-yielding capacity. Komorzynski’s point is therefore not that credit is exceptional or parasitic, but that it is one of the characteristic mechanisms by which a private-property economy coordinates dispersed economic powers.
The early part of the work is accordingly theoretical rather than descriptive. Komorzynski insists that credit theory cannot begin with banks, bills, or money markets. It must first clarify what it means for an economic subject to possess wealth, to dispose over capital, and to receive income. The concept of income is especially important because credit relations are oriented toward futurity: repayment, yield, or participation depends on the debtor’s or enterprise’s expected future stream of returns.
Die Idee vom Einkommen ist vielmehr völlig unabweislich
English translation: The idea of income is rather wholly indispensable.
Income is thus not an optional accounting refinement. It is the category that makes intelligible why present resources can be transferred against future satisfaction, and why a creditor may rationally relinquish immediate control. Credit presupposes that economic life is not exhausted by existing stocks of goods; it rests on anticipated future proceeds. This is one of Komorzynski’s core conceptual moves: he ties credit to the distinction between Vermögen as a present fund, capital as economically employed wealth, and income as the recurrent outcome toward which economic activity is directed.
From this foundation the work develops a typology. Credit is not reducible to the simple money loan. Once viewed economically, it includes different relations between the provider of resources and the user of them. Komorzynski therefore divides credit into principal forms:
Es scheidet sich hiernach der Credit in zwei Hauptarten.
English translation: Credit accordingly divides into two principal kinds.
The significance of this division is that it separates credit relations according to the creditor’s position in the economic process. In one form, the creditor stands over against the debtor as lender, expecting restitution or an equivalent return. In another, the provider of resources enters into the fortunes of the undertaking itself. Komorzynski captures this distinction sharply:
Der Creditgeber ist hier nicht Darleiher, sondern Gesellschafter.
English translation: Here the credit-giver is not a lender, but a partner.
This formulation shows why the book is more than a theory of lending. It broadens credit into a theory of the ways capital is made available across separate private economies. The “creditor” may remain an external claimant, or may become a participant in enterprise risk and gain. Komorzynski’s analysis therefore connects credit with the organization of production, not merely with consumption smoothing or payment delay.
The relevance of the work lies in this institutional and categorical breadth. Written before later macroeconomic theories of credit creation, it nevertheless resists a narrow monetary interpretation. Credit appears as a social relation mediated by private property: it preserves the autonomy of economic units while enabling resources to move toward uses for which their current owners are not themselves prepared. The work’s enduring interest is its insistence that credit theory must be grounded in the structure of the private economy as a whole. Exchange and credit are parallel forms of coordination; wealth, capital, and income are the categories that explain their function; and the lender-partner distinction reveals the range of economic relations hidden under the single word “Credit.”
This work was divided into 133 sections when it entered the library's research corpus—an apparatus for search and citation, not necessarily the author's own table of contents. Each title opens its summary.
Put a question to this work; the Librarian answers from its 133 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian