Any books on finance, trade, etc.?

[RadioRaheem84]

I am curious to learn about finance capitalism and all of the intricacies involved with it. I don't just mean in abstract forms but in ways that challenge the actual practice behind it. I think Nomi Prins, a progressive liberal, wrote something about the current crisis and the derivatives market but is there anything written by Marxists?

I would like to understand all aspects of the economy from a Marxist perspective for when I encounter traders, I-bankers, and the like.

[Common_Means]

Limits to Capital by David Harvey would be a good starting point in my opinion.

[RadioRaheem84]

Limits to Capital by David Harvey would be a good starting point in my opinion.

Thanks. Does this book offer a good critique of the practice behind finance capitalism and doesn't dive into just theory? I would like hard hitting stuff that challenges the claim that these jackals create wealth but rather extract it.

The best thing I've read that has tackled some of this was in a chapter of the book When Corporations Rule the World by David Korten.

[Common_Means]

Thanks. Does this book offer a good critique of the practice behind finance capitalism and doesn't dive into just theory? I would like hard hitting stuff that challenges the claim that these jackals create wealth but rather extract it.

The best thing I've read that has tackled some of this was in a chapter of the book When Corporations Rule the World by David Korten.

One aspect of the book focuses on the financial/credit sector, drawing it into Marxian theory. So, pending on how up to speed you are with your Capital, it should help you address issues posed by bankers and so on.

Here's a quick overview from Verso:

"In its first appearance in 1982, David Harvey's Limits to Capital was described in Monthly Review as “a unique and insightful theory of capital,” and praised in Environment and Planning as “a magnificent achievement, [one of] the most complete, readable, lucid and least partisan exegesis, critique and extension of Marx's mature political economy available.“
Widely praised as an exciting, insightful exposition and development of Marx’s critique of political economy, Harvey updates his classic text with a discussion of the turmoil in world markets today. In his analyses of “fictitious capital” and “uneven geographical development,” Harvey takes the reader step by step through layers of crisis formation, beginning with Marx's controversial argument concerning the falling rate of profit, moving through crises of credit and finance, and closing with a timely analysis of geo-political and geographical considerations. Recently referred to by Fredric Jameson in New Left Review as a “magisterial work,” The Limits to Capital provides one of the best theoretical guides to the contradictory forms found in the historical and geographical dynamics of capitalist development."

versobooks.com/books/ghij/h-titles/harvey_limits_capital_2e.shtml

[RadioRaheem84]

Sounds good. I will read it. I am surprised that it was written in '82!

I am just tired of going from liberal critique of finance > to theoretical abstract critique (Monthly Review) > to overall Marxist critique of capitalism in general.

[RadioRaheem84]

I am looking for hard hitting stuff like when Lenin wrote about finance capitalism.

[bailey_187]

Hyman Minsky wrote quite well it i think

[KC]

I am looking for hard hitting stuff like when Lenin wrote about finance capitalism.

If you are interested in learning about the classical theory of imperialism as put forward in Lenin's pamphlet then I'd suggest you look into the material from which he was drawing. Lenin's pamphlet was meant as both a popularization of the real work put down by earlier writers as well as (and less important today) a polemic against Kautsky's theory of ultra-imperialism. Lenin drew from works by Hobson, Bukharin and Hilferding in writing his pamphlet, so I'd suggest that you start there. Most notably, the following works:

Hobson - Imperialism
Hilferding - Finance Capital
Bukharin - Imperialism and World Economy
Bukharin - Towards a Theory of the Imperialist State

Now, in my opinion there were some issues with some of the theories put forward by the classics (most notably a lack of clarity regarding the relationship between class and state), and I also think that the classic theory is no longer applicable, and hasn't been since around the end of WW2. However, I also disagree heavily with the work put forward since then by Marxists regarding imperialism theory and economic development; most notably, I think Sweezy and Baran were heavily flawed in their analysis and I also think that dependency theory in general is completely wrong.

I honestly don't think that anyone has put forward a valid theory regarding imperialism or the development of capitalism since the end of WW2. The current financial crisis, if that's what you are looking to read about, has been studied by Marxists but the vast majority of those analyses are completely superficial and just dogmatically revert back to a "confirmation" of the classical Marxist theory, which I have already said is no longer applicable.

I don't think what you're looking for exists.

[Common_Means]

I should have thought of this title before, but I think you may enjoy Andrew Glyn's Capitalism Unleashed. It may not be as hard-hitting as what you'd like, but it offers a succinct account on how finance capital grew in the latter half of the 20C.

Give it a read - it'll be worth your while.

[RadioRaheem84]

Now, in my opinion there were some issues with some of the theories put forward by the classics (most notably a lack of clarity regarding the relationship between class and state), and I also think that the classic theory is no longer applicable, and hasn't been since around the end of WW2. However, I also disagree heavily with the work put forward since then by Marxists regarding imperialism theory and economic development; most notably, I think Sweezy and Baran were heavily flawed in their analysis and I also think that dependency theory in general is completely wrong.

Why are Monthly Review crowd wrong? I think their analysis is probably the best we've seen in so long. They've captured the abstract notions of the original critique of capitalism as well making sense of the actual stuff going on in the economic world.


I honestly don't think that anyone has put forward a valid theory regarding imperialism or the development of capitalism since the end of WW2. The current financial crisis, if that's what you are looking to read about, has been studied by Marxists but the vast majority of those analyses are completely superficial and just dogmatically revert back to a "confirmation" of the classical Marxist theory, which I have already said is no longer applicable.

I don't know about superficial, but I agree that current Marxists haven't been quite as stunning in dismantling the complexity of the international financial markets. They do always just revert back to the abstract. This is why I always look foolish in front of my banker friends when I debate with them, because I am always going back to the abstract and I end up having a philosophical debate on the logic of their theory not their practice or their numbers.

I want to bridge the gap between the two. The only thing I have found though is progressive liberal stuff, which is good, but falls short.

KC, do you care to explain why classical Marxist theory is no longer applicable?

[Common_Means]

I honestly don't think that anyone has put forward a valid theory regarding imperialism or the development of capitalism since the end of WW2. The current financial crisis, if that's what you are looking to read about, has been studied by Marxists but the vast majority of those analyses are completely superficial and just dogmatically revert back to a "confirmation" of the classical Marxist theory, which I have already said is no longer applicable.

I would argue that Marx's work is still very much relevant - I'm curious as to why you believe otherwise?

If we use Marx's method of analysis as a framework for "our" current crisis, then it becomes apparent that he is still very much relevant. For instance, financialization was not conjured up out of thin air - it did not gain dominance by mistake. Instead, it grew from specific circumstances inherent to its particular epoch.

When productivity began to slow in the 1970s, in part due to Keynesian policies, capital required a change. One of these changes was the shift in interest rates - slowing down inflation and increasing unemployment. Needless to say, the result were numerous: increased discipline of labour, union busting and so on. Perhaps more importantly, high interest rates gave rise to the financial sector, which arguably allowed for the further centralization of capital.

This short blurp of our current crisis, which is by no way complete, may be exactly what you're talking about in terms of dogmatic adherence classical Marx. So I would greatly appreciate it if you could outline why you believe it no longer applies?

[RadioRaheem84]

The abstract original critique of capitalism that Marx outlined is very much applicable in the current situation. In fact, I think it's the only thing that can actually explain the crisis at an overall general level.

The point I was trying to make was that I want to know about the inner workings of why people thought CDOs, Credit default swaps and other complex financial instruments were reasonable tools to market in the world of high finance? Most of the Marxists today that I've read sort of gloss over this and say that these instruments are utter BS and there is no need to analyze them or the rational for their existence; they just served as a mechanism for short term profit at the expense of the productive economy. They don't directly challenge the numbers, the financial quantitative analysis that bankers cherish so much and use to peddle these things to investors, etc. Instead they say they're BS and repeat the original critique of capitalism Marx outlined; capitalists needed a new market to conquer in their forever contradictory quest for profits.

All of the stuff I've read that sort of directly challenges the rational and logic of the complex financial instruments have come from bourgeoisie and progressive liberal sources. I mean, we need another Lenin-like pamphlet. We're missing out on a great opportunity.


Capitalism Unleashed by Andrew Gwyn looks EXCELLENT, thanks Common!

The Great Financial Crisis by John Bellamy Foster is probably the best book I've read so far that bridges the gap. Any more like this out there?

[Common_Means]

I'm going to check out that Foster book, it looks good. Let me know if you find anything - I'd be interested in reading it.

[RadioRaheem84]

The Monthly Review crowd, Foster, Magdoff, and Minqi LI, etc. are probably the best the Marxists that bridge the gap. Read MRzine, the Review's daily Mag. Tons of good stuff.

Good progressive sources are Dean Baker and Nomi Prins. Excellent analysis.

[KC]

Why are Monthly Review crowd wrong? I think their analysis is probably the best we've seen in so long. They've captured the abstract notions of the original critique of capitalism as well making sense of the actual stuff going on in the economic world.

Dependency theory has a whole host of problems associated with it, some of which I've covered in my previous post and others which you can find elsewhere. I am not interested in getting into that debate as I have nothing to gain from it.


KC, do you care to explain why classical Marxist theory is no longer applicable?

By classical theory I was referring to the classical Marxist theory of imperialism, which was the theory originally put forward by Hilferding, Bukharin and Lenin. There are a variety of reasons that the theory is no longer applicable as it is presented, mostly having to do with the change in relation between capital and state and the breaking up of the global empires of the great powers following WW2, among a ton of other developments.

[RadioRaheem84]

Dependency theory has a whole host of problems associated with it, some of which I've covered in my previous post and others which you can find elsewhere. I am not interested in getting into that debate as I have nothing to gain from it.

Any links to previous posts?

Also, what do you believe?

[KC]

Any links to previous posts?

I probably deleted them or posted them elsewhere, but I can't find them now. I did write this short piece elsewhere regarding my dislike of economic development theory in general, which contains a paragraph about dependency theory:


I don’t think that this is really a question that can be answered [fyi, I wrote this in response to a question asking if it is in the interests of developed countries to assist LDC's in their development]. In my opinion the majority of economic development theory is flawed because it doesn’t take into account the correct relation between state and capital. Primarily, I think that the view put forward that a comprehensive system of economic development as put forward in economic policy by governments of either (or both) developed and developing countries is incredibly reductionist and in general incorrect. The development of capitalism as a global system is much more complicated than the policies of certain governments, and so I feel that economic development as a field of economics has been incredibly flawed in its fundamental starting points and principles from which it bases its analysis.

Because of the complex relation between state and capital, the question being presented here isn’t really valid. To ask if it is in the interests of the developed countries to help improve the economic performance of low-income countries we must make a set of very important presumptions: namely, that the state is a direct representative of domestic capital, that domestic capital (or more specifically, the capitalist class) is a monolithic entity with a homogeneous set of interests and that the capital of the developed country either has a single interest in assisting the low-income country or in preventing that country from developing economically. These are all very reductionist assumptions that contain a variety of problems, and on the whole they are incorrect.

First, capital is not a monolithic class with homogeneous interests. The bourgeoisie is a group that can be divided into a variety of subclasses, which in turn can be even further subdivided. These groups do not have a single monolithic interest when it comes to the question at hand, and so it is not possible to discuss from the perspective of capital as a whole. Some groups of capital will see enormous benefit from the development of the low-income country, while others will not see any benefit whatsoever. The conflict of interests within the capitalist class prohibits us from discussing the general interest of capital as a whole in this context.

Second, the state is not a direct representative of capital as a whole. The state is an entity whose raison d'être is the mediation of class conflict for the perpetuation of the system as a whole; this means that conflicts between not only capital and labour, but also between different groups of capital, manifest themselves in the workings of government and find their realization in the mediating role of the state. Because of this, state policy is not representative in its policies of capital as a whole but rather is representative of this or that group of capital which was determined by governmental/administrative conflict. This means that to ask about the interests of the state is an invalid question, as the interests of the state are determined by the struggle between different groups of capital.

This lack of distinction between state interests and class interests is my largest criticism of economic development. To say that the state has an independent interest in the development of other states is to completely misrepresent the role of the state and thus the role of capital, which is a fundamentally flawed starting point.

Interestingly enough, this criticism applies equally as validly to the orthodox theories of economic development as it does to the neo-Marxist theories. Sweezy and Baran, et al. (dependency theory as a whole) made the fundamental error of assuming that class interests can be “transformed” into national interests and that therefore it is possible to define an “imperialist” and an “imperialized” state (this flaw goes all the way back to the ignorance in the classic Marxist theory of imperialism regarding the relation between state and capital). It completely substitutes class interests for national interests, and this substitutionism is the fundamental flaw in their analysis as well (in other theories the distinction is made between “core” and “periphery,” which is equally wrong).

So in conclusion, I don’t think that it is valid to ask if it is in the interests of high income countries or not – the question itself to me is unanswerable because it contains fundamentally incorrect presumptions. Further, I think these presumptions are what makes the entire field of economic development (even the neo-Marxist dependency theories) fundamentally flawed. As of yet I have not come across a theory of development or underdevelopment/dependency that contains even a valid starting point from which to build.


Also, what do you believe?

I already said what I believe:


I honestly don't think that anyone has put forward a valid theory regarding imperialism or the development of capitalism since the end of WW2.

I have no new theory to offer as of yet, so I don't have a solution to offer you, but am currently doing research into the historical validity of the classical theory, the historical point of departure (somewhere during or around the end of WW2) and the preliminary work required to develop a new theory of imperialism.

[RadioRaheem84]

Excellent. Let me know when you're done. For the most part I can see what you're saying and it's a really, really good point.


These groups do not have a single monolithic interest when it comes to the question at hand, and so it is not possible to discuss from the perspective of capital as a whole. Some groups of capital will see enormous benefit from the development of the low-income country, while others will not see any benefit whatsoever. The conflict of interests within the capitalist class prohibits us from discussing the general interest of capital as a whole in this context.

Isn't the general interest to maximize profits? The development of a low income country is just secondary. The neo-liberal paradigm is what's good for capital is good for the country. The conflict of interests doesn't range from much more than how much development is good for the country (i.e. capital).



Because of this, state policy is not representative in its policies of capital as a whole but rather is representative of this or that group of capital which was determined by governmental/administrative conflict. This means that to ask about the interests of the state is an invalid question, as the interests of the state are determined by the struggle between different groups of capital.

That doesn't change the fact that the conflicting interests still don't share the same presumptions about the economy. They differ on the way to accommodate it to fit their competing interests.



Sweezy and Baran, et al. (dependency theory as a whole) made the fundamental error of assuming that class interests can be “transformed” into national interests and that therefore it is possible to define an “imperialist” and an “imperialized” state (this flaw goes all the way back to the ignorance in the classic Marxist theory of imperialism regarding the relation between state and capital). It completely substitutes class interests for national interests, and this substitutionism is the fundamental flaw in their analysis as well (in other theories the distinction is made between “core” and “periphery,” which is equally wrong).

I shouldn't be ascribing Baran and Sweezy's views to anyone who writes for MR, but there is a great article about China and their economic development in the Februrary issue of MR and how the bourgoise in the States make the erroneous assumption that class interests are tied to national interests, like you stated.

The whole paragraph in the article is titled "The Nation State" Argument. The author Martin Hart-Landsberg asserts that doing so rests on a poor understanding of the forces at work in China (not to mention capitalist dynamics) and the consequences of those forces for the US (and Chinese) workers.

http://monthlyreview.org/100201hart-landsberg.php

[KC]

Isn't the general interest to maximize profits?

I was referring to a general interest within the context of imperialism, not capitalism (which is why I ended that with "in this context").


That doesn't change the fact that the conflicting interests still don't share the same presumptions about the economy. They differ on the way to accommodate it to fit their competing interests.

I don't know what you mean by this.

[RadioRaheem84]

I was referring to a general interest within the context of imperialism, not capitalism (which is why I ended that with "in this context").:blushing: Ah, sorry.

Then yeah, you're pretty much right. On a global scale the interests to get muddled in a sea of competing interests.


That doesn't change the fact that the conflicting interests still don't share the same presumptions about the economy. They differ on the way to accommodate it to fit their competing interests.I just meant that at the national level it doesn't matter, all the competing interests (capitalists) usually share the same presupposition, that what is good for capital is good for the country.

But that's all irrelevant. Yes, there is no concrete theory, at least that I've read, that deals with imperialism really. But does there have to be one if capitalist interests are contradictory anyway? Globally, even more so?

[KC]

But that's all irrelevant. Yes, there is no concrete theory, at least that I've read, that deals with imperialism really. But does there have to be one if capitalist interests are contradictory anyway? Globally, even more so?

The various positions of different groups regarding imperialism and anti-imperialism, which is probably nowadays the primary cause of conflict between communists, are based on different interpretations of the classical Marxist theory of imperialism and the extent to which they extrapolate that out to the present. Clarifying a coherent and complete theory of imperialism that is applicable to contemporary society not only would deal with this issue but would also give us profound insights into events past and present and a reasonable guess of the future development of the system.

Also, I think that many communist organizations have a very outdated perspective on contemporary capitalism and their methodology reflects it. In the US, for example, you will find that the majority of communist organizations are completely alienated from reality and real struggle, and only participate on the sidelines (at most). This is due to a wide variety of reasons, but I think one of the more prominent is their lack of understanding of the evolution, composition and division of the working class due to the development of capitalism along different lines than those written about by the classic writers (the development of multinational corporations, for example, is representative of a very profound shift in the relation between state and capital; or the "deindustrialization" of the United States).

So yes, I think it is very important to develop such a theory. I think it is one of the most important things one can do today. I don't see how we can possibly expect to make any reasonable advances if we don't.

[bailey_187]

KC, i know you said no one has a theory of Imperialism for the present day you think is sufficient, what modern books/writings on Imperialism would you recommend? (excpet david harvy's and Callinicos' new one, i got those)

[RadioRaheem84]

Yeah, most of my anti-imperial stuff comes from progressives not Marxists. Same with the finance and international trade, minus the MR crowd. Do you think that progressives critics of globalization have sort of picked up where Marxists left off? Could there be a coherent theory of imperialism embedded there?

Other than that, I never noticed that I haven't found a good concrete Marxist book that fully addresses global capitalism, global finance and imperialism other than in an abstract way.