--- wrobert at uci.edu wrote:
(CharlesBrown) Also, isn't there some sense in which finance capital does dominate industrial capital today ? Isn't finance capital topdog ?
(WRobert) Charles, the problem with the monomaniacal focus on interest is that it naturalizes the structures of domination that exist in surplus value itself. Financial institutions may play a role in organizing
that domination, but it's role is imeshed in the system of domination."
This isnt clear enough for me. WR seems to be saying that the focus on interest obscures the true order of domination. That doesnt answer the question of whether interest isnt at the same time the principal motor that drives domination. When capital is sitting idle, it has to earn interest. When it decides to become active and invest, it has to obtain at least the same rate of return. In this sense it appears that interest dictates the rate of return the industrial capitalist must plan for in order to attract investment.
OK, I'm just a layman. Fire away, Doug!
BobW
> > No one talked about shielding it from criticism;
> the objection is to
> > singling it out for special criticism. Why was
> J.P. Morgan any worse
> > than Andrew Carnegie?
> >
> > ^^^^^
> > CB: Those who single out finance capital for
> special criticism may be
> > making some valid criticisms of finance capital,
> even when they don't
> > make criticisms of other sectors of capital. And
> there is this pattern
> > ( for example, when this came up on PEN-L) of
> rejecting their criticisms
> > of finance capital out of hand , because they
> don't criticize
> > non-finance capital. Just because they don't knock
> profit doesn't mean
> > they are wrong that interest should be abolished.
> We can fill in the
> > anti-profit half, while cheering their
> anti-interest half. If they can
> > get interest abolished, we have a much better
> chance of abolishing
> > profit. Abolishing interest is an interesting
> reform demand.
> >
> > When somebody says "abolish interest" ! It's a
> dodge to respond, "no
> > don't abolish interest , because you aren't also
> saying abolish profit
> > as well. " The best answer is " You are right:
> abolish interest. And
> > abolish profit, too"
> >
> >
> > Also, I'm not sure all those who single out
> interest for criticism are
> > anti-semitic. Has somebody shown a one-to-one
> correspondence between
> > anti-semitism and anti-interest theory ? The
> anti-semitism charge is
> > used to squash discussion of anti-interest
> theories.
> >
> > I seem to hear a lot more singling out of profit
> over interest for
> > criticism by the left.
> >
> > Also, isn't there some sense in which finance
> capital does dominate
> > industrial capital today ? Isn't finance capital
> topdog ? Didn't
> > Carnegie or his progeny become a banker -
> Carnegie-Mellon ? Shouldn't
> > there be special criticism of finance capital in
> the era of finance
> > capital ?
>
> Charles, the problem with the monomaniacal focus on
> interest is that it
> naturalizes the structures of domination that exist
> in surplus value
> itself. Financial institutions may play a role in
> organizing that
> domination, but it's role is imeshed in the system
> of domination. There
> isn't a one to one correspondence to these theories,
> but they are
> analogous in their mystifying function. It is also
> important to note that
> anti-semitic argumentation tends to draw on the
> unnatural nature of
> interest and anti-interest advocates frequently fall
> into anti-semitism.
> Let me turn to Horkheimer and Adorno for the
> anti-semiticism side.
>
> "Bourgeois anti-Semitism has a specific
> economic reason: the
> concealment of domination in production. In earlier
> ages the
> rulers were directly repressive and not only left
> all work to
> the lower classes but declared work to be a
> disgrace, as it
> always was under domination; and in a mercantile
> age, the
> industrial boss is absolute monarch. Production
> attracts its
> own courtiers. The new rulers simply took off the
> bright garb
> of the nobility and donned civilian clothing. They
> declared
> that work was not degrading, so as to control the
> others more
> rationally. They claimed to be creative workers,
> but in reality
> they were still the overlords of former times. The
> manufacturer
> calculated, arranged, bought and sold. On the
> market he
> competedfor the profit corresponding to his own
> capital. He
> seized all he could, not only on the market but at
> the very
> source: as a representative of his class he made
> sure that his
> workers did not sell him short with their labor.
> The workers
> had to supply the maximum amount of goods. Like
> Shylock, the
> bosses demand their pound of flesh. They owned the
> machines and
> materials, and therefore compelled others to produce
> for them.
> They called themselves producers, but secretly
> everyone knew the
> truth. The productive work of the capitalist,
> whether he
> justifies his profit by means of gross returns as
> under
> liberalism, or by his director's salary as today, is
> an ideology
> cloaking the real nature of the labor contract and
> the grasping
> character of the economic system.
> And so the people shout: Stop thief!--but
> point at the Jews. They
> are scapegoats not only for individual maneuvers and
> machinations
> but in a broader sense, inasmuch as the economic
> injustice of the
> whole class is attributed to them.... The merchant
> presents them
> with the bill which they have signed away to the
> manufacturer. The
> merchant is the bailiff of the whole system and
> takes the hatred of
> others upon himself. The responsibility of the
> circulation sector
> for exploitation is a socially necessary pretense."
> (Horkheimer and
> Adorno 174)
>
> robert wood
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>