[lbo-talk] Fitch and Brenner

[Charles Brown]

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