OK, here’s Hudson:
“Many Social Democratic and Labour parties have jumped on the bandwagon of finance capital, not recognizing the need to rescue industrial capitalism from dependence on neofeudal finance capital before the older conflict between labor and industrial capital over wage levels and working conditions can be resumed.”
This is wrong on just so many levels. Let’s leave aside that the leaders of contemporary Social Democratic [sic] and Labour [sic] parties probably understand very well the rewards (for themselves, if not their constituencies) of jumping on the bandwagon of finance capital. But look at this: “…recognizing the need to rescue industrial capitalism from dependence on neofeudal finance capital before the older conflict between labor and industrial capital over wage levels and working conditions can be resumed…” Say *what*? *Rescue* industrial capitalism? You know, so it can *then* fulfill its historic mission and slug it out with the working class? Which it can do if it just shakes off that atavistic “neofeudal” [sic] finance capital? Hudson is arguing for a supposed need for a historically quantized two-tier fight against capitalism. It’s not only wrong but it’s dangerously wrong because it is a recipe for defeat.
Yes, finance capital in some general form existed in pre-capitalist as well as capitalist epochs, *but due to historical developments that led to the capitalist mode of production their social forms are completely different*. Here are some other “neofeudal” carryovers: War. The state. Money. Land rent. Markets. Commodities. Hell, how about capitalists? Capitalists existed before capitalism. Are we supposed to finish off these historical vestiges *before* capitalists and workers are free to get down to fulfilling that historic role? It makes no sense. There’s no reason finance capital should be analyzed any differently.
Finance capital is totally integrated into, and is an integral part of, the capitalist mode of production. One can no more transcend finance capital than one can transcend industrial capital—and if it happens, the result is some form of not-capitalism. I wish.
Hudson shows how bad theory can lead to disastrous political prescriptions.
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 4:01 AM, c b <cb31450 at gmail.com> wrote:
> socialismorbarbarism
>
> Correct. I'm mocking Hudson's argument. I don't like it at all. Not
> one little bit. I think it is the kind of argument that can make one
> deeply misunderstand capitalist power, if taken seriously.
>
> ^^^^^^^
>
> CB: Please elaborate.
>
...