^^^^^ CB: This is a "simpleminded" and distorted characterization of that thread. Finance capital is merged with industrial capital, but also is dominant over it. This is an objective, not moral, characteristic of capitalism , a trend in it, since the end of the 1800's. The use of "good" and "bad" to characterize the observed difference is cheeky, attacking a strawman, a diversion and dodging the arguments.
^^^^^
Angelus:For Marx, money and credit are the driving instance of a capitalist economy. I.I. Rubin understood this. Hans-Georg Backhaus and Helmut Reichelt understand it. Michael Heinrich understands it. Doug Henwood understands it.
^^^^^^ CB: What do you mean by "driving instance" ?
Marx certainly emphasized that value is created in production, not exchange. That's a central point he makes. (Of course, if we start quoting _Capital_ some do do will start talking about treating it as scripture. What stupid shit) That's why Vol. I is on production, and Vol. II is on money and credit and M-C-M1 exchanges. Why would he put the analysis of the "driving force" in the second volume, which he didn't even hasten to publish ?
Anyway, it's pretty clear that Marx says that value is created by the _workers_ in industry, _not_ the _capitalists_ in industry. The industrial capitalists are , of course, parasites , too ! That's sort of a major point of _Capital_, no ? Rate of exploitation and all that. Who do you think is exploiting and parasitic in that narrative ? So, the idea that characterizing finance capital as parisitic, implies that industrial _capitalists_ are "good" and not parisitic is nonsense. The productive capital in industry is Variable Capital , i.e. labor, not the industrial _capitalists_.
On the other hand, if money and credit are the "driving force" of capitalism, that would seem to imply that Marxists should focus on finance capital over industrial capital in the class struggle. According to you, financiers are in the "driver's seat". That implies we should focus on fighting finance capital especially.
The finance capitalists are the bosses of the bosses in 2010. That's objective, not moralistic. It's not a matter of industrial capitalists being "good". That's a red herring, a strawman. Nobody said industrial capitalists are "good". And certainly nobody has said that industrial capitalists are good because they are "Christian". To claim somebody said that is slander.
Recently, finance capital in the US was bailed out to the tune of trillions of dollars. Industrial capital was loaned tens of billions. That pretty much tells the story of whose the big boss and whose the little boss. It's stark, and it's objective, not a moral question.
*******
Angelus: Any left worth its salt has to nip that sort of thing in the bud within its own ranks.
^^^^^^^ CB: There is also a big problem of finance capitalists trying to hide behind phony "pro-Semitism". The dominant section of the ruling class, which includes lots of "Christians", seeks to censor criticism of itself by phony anti-Semitism claims against the criticism. They cry crocodile tears for Jewish people, hiding under the skirts of the Jewish people, while caring not for the Jewish people.
Your failure to acknowledge this phenomenon - fake pro-Semitism by "Christian" bankers/financiers to censor criticism of their dominant role - is a serious shortcoming in your analysis of finance capital 2010. Better start nipping that in the bud too; well, it's beyond a bud by now. You'll have to deflower it.