bailey_187
10th August 2010, 18:15
I posted this in theory, but no one replied. People love talking about being anti-imperialist and defedning blah blah against imperialism, but its never clear what it means. the more i read about imperialism the less sure i am of what it actually is.
-----------------------
So quite alot when imperialism comes up people often say it is when finance capital fuses with industrial capital, with the former being dominant.
But i never see it explained how exactly the fusion and dominance of finance capital actually creates Imperialism.
So i been doing some reading on Hilderdings writings today to try find out, but i am still abit unsure. So i am going to type up notes i took and hopefully someone can point out where i am understanding it wrong?
The fusion of the two capitals happens because:
Hilferding said banks (finance capital) and industrial enterprises were becoming more centralised. They were also being drawn more closer together by industrial capital relied on loans from finance capital and as industry becomes more centralised and concentrated they begin to float shares, which finance capital takes a leading role. Therefore they both come together.
I also recall something about the banks having access to large sums of idle money; is this due to the large profits monopolies are able to acrue, compared to industry in more competitive stages of capitalism? It seems similar to Hobsans over-savings thing, but im not sure if they role played by these large savings is the same for Hilferding as it is for Hobsons?
How finance dominates industry:
The credit lent to industry by banks for fixed capital purchases makes finance capital dominant because to pay back the large loans takes along time, so finance capitalists moniter industrial capital, controlling it.
-THIS SEEMS ABIT OF A WEAK ARGUMENT, surely i am missing something? How does monitering a industrial capital make it suboridinate?
How this creates Imperialism:
There was an increase in aggresive tariffs in the late 19th century to try wipe out comeptiters industry
Cartels favoured these so they could sell their commodities in an exclusive sphere. Finance capital wants to expand its own exclusive tarriff protected area rather than merely selling commodities (why?)
Since exclusive areas weaken potential for commodity export, tariffs encourage the export of capital, which is invested abroad
As i understand , Hilferdings argument was very specific to late 19th century Germany though and it is wrong to say that finance capital dominates industry in America these days or in Britain at the time. Also after WW2 in the most investments in fixed capital was paid for by industrial capital profits, not loans from finance capital.
So why is capital exported abroad these days? What is the cause of Imperialism, if not finance capital?
-----------------------
So quite alot when imperialism comes up people often say it is when finance capital fuses with industrial capital, with the former being dominant.
But i never see it explained how exactly the fusion and dominance of finance capital actually creates Imperialism.
So i been doing some reading on Hilderdings writings today to try find out, but i am still abit unsure. So i am going to type up notes i took and hopefully someone can point out where i am understanding it wrong?
The fusion of the two capitals happens because:
Hilferding said banks (finance capital) and industrial enterprises were becoming more centralised. They were also being drawn more closer together by industrial capital relied on loans from finance capital and as industry becomes more centralised and concentrated they begin to float shares, which finance capital takes a leading role. Therefore they both come together.
I also recall something about the banks having access to large sums of idle money; is this due to the large profits monopolies are able to acrue, compared to industry in more competitive stages of capitalism? It seems similar to Hobsans over-savings thing, but im not sure if they role played by these large savings is the same for Hilferding as it is for Hobsons?
How finance dominates industry:
The credit lent to industry by banks for fixed capital purchases makes finance capital dominant because to pay back the large loans takes along time, so finance capitalists moniter industrial capital, controlling it.
-THIS SEEMS ABIT OF A WEAK ARGUMENT, surely i am missing something? How does monitering a industrial capital make it suboridinate?
How this creates Imperialism:
There was an increase in aggresive tariffs in the late 19th century to try wipe out comeptiters industry
Cartels favoured these so they could sell their commodities in an exclusive sphere. Finance capital wants to expand its own exclusive tarriff protected area rather than merely selling commodities (why?)
Since exclusive areas weaken potential for commodity export, tariffs encourage the export of capital, which is invested abroad
As i understand , Hilferdings argument was very specific to late 19th century Germany though and it is wrong to say that finance capital dominates industry in America these days or in Britain at the time. Also after WW2 in the most investments in fixed capital was paid for by industrial capital profits, not loans from finance capital.
So why is capital exported abroad these days? What is the cause of Imperialism, if not finance capital?