On Feb 24, 2009, at 12:07 AM, Charles Brown wrote:
> _Imperialism_ sounds like it was
> written today, if you stop and
> think about it.
It doesn't at all. I really have no idea what you're talking about. Following Hilferding, Lenin's world is one in which industry is controlled by banks. That's not true today - the relations between shareholders and managers are really complicated. It's also a world of monopolies and holding companies, but in fact there's a lot of competition in most industries. (Would GM be at death's door in LeninHilferdingWorld?) This bit is funny to read today: "During periods of industrial boom, the profits of finance capital are immense, but during periods of depression, small and unsound businesses go out of existence, and the big banks acquire 'holdings' in them by buying them up for a mere song, or participate in profitable schemes for their 'reconstruction' and 'reorganisation'." In fact, the big banks are on the verge of being nationalized because they're so weak. In Lenin's world, the oil industry was controlled by a couple of giant interests; today, the oil market is fragmented, with ownership divided between the majors and national oil companies, and the prices set on futures markets. In Lenin's model, states vie to control real estate in the colonies; today's imperial structure is a complex hierarchy with the U.S. certainly on top, with a second tier of powers (e.g., the rest of the G7), and some rising powers like China playing a substantial role. Speaking of China, it's a creditor of the top imperial power, which is precisely the opposite of the way Lenin said things were supposed to be.
Oh, and you seem to think that when Hilferding used the term "finance capital," he was referring to what we think of as "finance," banks and financial markets. But his finance capital is the merger of finance and industry. As I recall, he used the metaphor of the Holy Trinity to describe it.
Aside from that, it's as fresh as a just caught and shucked oyster.
Doug