[lbo-talk] Fitch and Brenner

Charles Brown cdb1003 at prodigy.net
Sat Feb 28 06:29:51 PST 2009


One of the critical group of concepts from Hilferding, Lenin and, I think Hobson, too, that is pertinent in the current period, is the notion of finance capitalism as dominated by a financial oligarchy-monopoly, an enormous concentration of wealth and power in the biggest financial companies. The ruling class is very much focused in finance capital. This may be truer today than 100 years ago in terms of the wealth concentration.  I've never heard anyone say that Keynes emphasizes this. Lenin , of course, analyzes finance capital in terms of class relations, especially when _Imperialism_ is read in conjunction with the rest of his work. I didn't mean only read _Imperialism_ of Lenin's work and Marx's work. Lenin's _Imperialism_ includes _Capital_ and the rest of Marx by reference. It's _Marxism_-Leninism. Keynes doesn't seem much interested in elucidating finance capital in relation to class struggle or Marx. So, Lenin's analysis of finance capital in relation to class struggle and Marx is uniquely pertinent to the current era; and, of course, with the explicit aim of doing away with finance capital, in the long or short run. Keynes doesn't seem to aim to get rid of finance capital and capitalism.

Also, Lenin refers to the parasitic character of finance capital. This enormous concentration of wealth is in the hands of people who have very little to do with creating it. To me, this raises the question of the social utility or function of the finance capital , which really comes to the fore in 2009. What is the social utility of the "work" of the CEOs of Citigroup and Bank of America et al. ? What use-values do they produce ? What are the use-values of the commodities underlying much of  the formation of ficticious capital ? I guess Keynes wants to euthanize the rentiers, but I get the impression it's a sort of coddling "euthanizing".

VIII. PARASITISM AND DECAY OF CAPITALISM

http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/2008-December/023316.html

"Further, imperialism is an immense accumulation of money capital in a few countries, amounting, as we have  seen, to 100,000-50,000 million francs in securities. Hence the extraordinary growth of a class, or rather, of a stratum of rentiers, i.e.,  people who live by “clipping coupons”, who take no part in any enterprise whatever, whose profession is idleness. The export  of capital, one of the most essential economic bases of imperialism, still more completely isolates the rentiers from production and sets  the seal of parasitism on the whole country that lives by exploiting the labour of several overseas countries and colonies. "

Perhaps related to this is Lenin's reference to finance capital as the merger of industrial and finance capital with the dominance of finance capital.  As to pertinence to 2009 , first it is often said that GM , for example, makes much of its money in its financial arm, which seems to be "merger" with finance. Furthermore, the dominance or at least predominance of finance seems to be reflected in the scenario of the last several months wherein the Wall Street oligopolic financial institutions got $8 trillion of what seemed to be gifts of some sort, with no questions asked. While the "big" three auto companies were put through the ringer in trying to get some $20 billion or so in _loans_. Even the bourgeois Detroit Free Press raised this stark contrast in power in a headline that I hope I have still saved somewhere.

 A columnist said "Can the auto industry borrow AIG's lobbyist?" http://www.freep.com/article/20081111/COL10/81112001/1164/COL10

BY ROCHELLE RILEY ● FREE PRESS COLUMNIST ● November 11, 2008

In sum, Lenin's concept of  the dominance of finance over industrial capital is truer in 2009 than in 1916.

On monopolies and competition, Lenin says: "At the same time the monopolies, which have grown out of free competition, do not eliminate the latter, but exist above it and alongside it, and thereby give rise to a  number of very acute, intense antagonisms, frictions and conflicts. Monopoly is the transition from capitalism to a higher system. "

If the following from 1916 doesn't sound really 2009ish, I don't know what does;

“Even in the purely economic sphere,” writes Kestner, “a certain change is taking place from commercial activity in the old sense of the word towards organisational-speculative  activity. The greatest success no longer goes to the merchant whose technical and commercial experience enables him best of all to estimate  the needs of the buyer, and who is able to discover and, so to speak, ‘awaken’ a latent demand; it goes to the speculative genius [?!] who knows how to estimate, or even only to sense in advance, the organisational development and the possibilities of certain connections  between individual enterprises and the banks. . . .”

Translated into ordinary human language this means that the development of capitalism has arrived at a stage when, although commodity production still “reigns” and continues to be regarded as the basis of economic life, it has in reality been undermined and the bulk of the profits go to the “geniuses” of financial manipulation. At the basis of these manipulations and swindles lies socialised production; but the immense progress of mankind, which achieved this socialisation, goes to benefit . . . the speculators. We shall see later how “on these grounds” reactionary, petty-bourgeois critics of capitalist imperialism dream of going back to “free”, “peaceful”, and “honest” competition.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch01.htm

(more later)

CB



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list