^^^^^
CB: I'm not trying to rehabilitate Dimitrov, because he doesn't need to be rehabilitated. Stalin is another matter.
^^^^^^^
I've never been that hot on Lenin, esp since his "thesis" changed daily with his shifting fortunes; it was "all power to the soviets" in April and down with the Petrograd soviet in October. In my book real socialism is the logical conclusion of Leninism.
^^^^^
CB: What are you a dogmatist ? Concrete analysis of the concrete situation. The basic principle is defeat capitalism, build socialism, otherwise be very flexible .
^^^^^^^
Finance capital I took to mean capital that is not tied down to the ownership of a particular means of production, in the marxist sense.
CB; You can be quite sure that Dimitrov and whatever Congress of the Comintern that was were using "finance capital" in the sense that Lenin uses it in _Imperialism_
^^^^
Enlighten me as to what advantage there is in removing that distinction. That'd be really rad, since it would get rid of LBO's and massive layoffs.
CB: Next week I'll do that. Again, Lenin defines "finance capital " in _Imperialism_ as the merger of finance and industrial capital. It is a technical usage , so to speak.
^^^^^
Secondly, does the term offer any advantage in analysing the present situation, where the Bush cabal is supported by primarily energy (mostly Texan) and defence capital? Yes, "elements" is relevant, but how does "finance capital" in your sense help our understanding?
^^^^^
CB: Doug has a criticism of my take on this , but I'd say "finance capital" is still a good way to define the U.S. ruling class today, but you've got to develop the concept based on the historical developments since 1916. Perhaps the "speculative sector" of finance capital reigns today is a start.
^^^^^
Engels's letter to Bloch is as cool as his other stuff but we're talking about Dimitrov, and therefore about Stalin, which is another cup of tea. If you have proof that Stalin didn't sponsor a strictly mechanistic, _anti-marxist_ materialism, I would be interested to see it.
CB: Next week, but no I don't agree that Dimitrov is just Stalin, but that he is a Leninist and Lenin is a follower of Engels and Marx. Anyway, I am not even sure that Stalin was a mechanistic anti-marxist materialist. His thinking might be subtler than some of the things you are saying here. Stalin follows Lenin pretty closely , so that would make you way off.
^^^^^^
Anyway, we could go back and forth about ancient history for years and not get anywhere. I think our positions on the present crisis are a lot closer than our readings of history. The Dimitrov definition could be perfect - it is to you bec you give it the most favorable reading possible - but still be too divisive to be useful bec the author is a Stalinist.
^^^^^
CB: Yea, maybe I'll respond off list. No, I won't buy everybody in the period is worthless because Stalin was the big leader. That's about as vulgar as your portrayal of Stalin's thinking. Things are more complicated than that. There's a lot of "good" mixed with a lot of bad. Sorry . That's life. Complicated.