The character of imperialism

[peaccenicked]

From Bukharin
''Imperialism is a policy of conquest. But not every policy of conquest is imperialism. Finance capital cannot pursue any other policy. This is why, when we speak of imperialism as the policy of finance capital, its conquest character is selfunderstood; at the same time, however, we point out what production relations are being reproduced by this policy of conquest. Moreover, this definition also includes a whole series of other historic trends and characteristics. Indeed, when we speak of finance capital, we imply highly developed economic organisms and, consequently, a certain scope and intensity of world relations; in a word, we imply the existence of a developed world economy; by the same token we imply a certain state of production relations, of organisational forms of the economic life, a certain interrelation of classes, and also a certain future of economic relations, etc., etc. Even the form and the means of struggle, the organisation of state power, the military technique, etc., are taken to be a more or less definite entity, whereas the formula "policy of conquest" is good for pirates, for caravan trade, and also for imperialism. In other words, the formula "policy of conquest," defines nothing, whereas the formula, "policy of conquest of finance capital," characterises imperialism as a definite historical entity."
I quote this to bring out the nature of finance capital.
This gives us an historical setting. I find the use of quotes very useful, if the bring out a better understanding for the reader. Here is finance capital put in another context its decline. From Hillel Ticktin
"There are three aspects of decline. The first reflects the political decline of the bourgeoisie in that it was overthrown in 1917 and the whole epoch now reflects that overthrow. The second reflects the fact that value itself is more restricted or decadent, as in finance capital............. The third refers to the increasing difference between actual and potential production........"
These are points of reference that bring out the nature of the epoch. Let us have a look at multinationals.
From Pilger.
"A multinational (or 'transnational') corporation is a company which operates in more than one country, as opposed to a purely domestic business which has no operations abroad. There are now 63,000 multinational corporations in the world, and between them they are responsible for two thirds of global trade and 80% of investment. They are the economic force behind globalisation''
Here it is necessary to digress. I dont want Imperialism to seem too out there.

"[T]he identification of some cause separate from one's own life . . . is fundamentally mistaken—the real power of capital is right here in our everyday lives—we re-create its power every day because capital is not a thing but a social relation between people (and hence classes) mediated by things."
Yet this is a common place. A reminder that capitalism is a paper tiger.
The expansion of financial capital through multinational has developed through technological developments.
however Diwan make the following observation.
''One can observe in the U.S. these days growing attendance in soup kitchens, homelessness and income inequalities. This is happening in other advanced countries as well.The negative relationship between finance capital and real economy is not particular to the U.S. It is valid internationally. As the finance capital has grown, the international economy has stagnated. The impact of this part of the globalization phenomena is to spread stagnation. This is part of the international reality. There has been for quite some time, and still is, a serious stagnation in the international economy. World Development Report 1992 [table 1, p.219] gives the annual average per cent growth rate of GDP per capita for the world for 1965 - 90 as 1.5.; a rate which for the period 1980 - 92 is reported as 1.2 in { World Development Report 1994 }[table 1, p.163]; a pretty large decline. These numbers suggest that the growth rate in 1980s has been rather low when both new technology and finance capital have been growing. Internationalization of new technology is a response to this stagnation. It is not a source of growth in the international economy.

The reality then is that far from a path to prosperity, globalization is undermining the growth potential of the international economy. Globalization is setting the stage for a serious deterioration in the international economy and the probability of a great depression in the not too distant future is by no means low. If globalization is suspect and economic reforms depends on it for success, some policies for economic reform are misguided.

I have dealt with the fallacy of economic reforms at length elsewhere. The Enron case is perhaps the best example both of globalization and fallacious reasoning. It was basically a move of the finance capital promoted through its association with technology. It made an excellent myth. Once opened to scrutiny, the myth evaporated and the reality became obvious.''
The left should be blowing the cover of this myth of economic development. Endemic to this is the decline of the Law of Value.
''The decline of capitalism must involve a decline in the operation of the law of value. both in extent and in itself. The latter refers to the increasing replacement of labour by machinery, which is leading logically to the point where value is abolished. That has not happened, as yet, but the process of automation is obvious. As a result, prices come to be arbitrary, dependent on the degree of control over the market, rather than value. The growth of 'monopoly' is an expression of this fundamental tendency. At the present time, we might expect that the lack of alignment of value and price might be partially restored in a depression. The fact, however is that there is such a serious divergence for long periods of time that it threatens the system itself in a serious downturn.''
The general tendency is towads class conflict.
There will be many touch points in the years to come.
At present, the most important in Europe is expressed here.
''Europe’s Trade Unions Concerned at Deteriorating Social Situation
The TUC has joined in the deep concerns expressed by trade unions throughout Europe at attacks on workers’ rights and the rise of demagogic approaches to immigration issues in a number of EU countries.''
This issue which is pertinent to the US and Australia as well Should be at the left focus, un the coming period.
It is a battl that needs to be won.

[El Che]

The use of quotes to ilustrate points is of course all good and well, if its been said better before then why not stick with that eh? But I would recomend "neetness" because towards the end of your post I couldn`t quite make out when it was you talking or when you where quoting.

"[T]he identification of some cause separate from one's own life . . . is fundamentally mistaken—the real power of capital is right here in our everyday lives—we re-create its power every day because capital is not a thing but a social relation between people (and hence classes) mediated by things."

Very well put.

''One can observe in the U.S. these days growing attendance in soup kitchens, homelessness and income inequalities. This is happening in other advanced countries as well.The negative relationship between finance capital and real economy is not particular to the U.S. It is valid internationally. As the finance capital has grown, the international economy has stagnated. The impact of this part of the globalization phenomena is to spread stagnation. This is part of the international reality. There has been for quite some time, and still is, a serious stagnation in the international economy. World Development Report 1992 [table 1, p.219] gives the annual average per cent growth rate of GDP per capita for the world for 1965 - 90 as 1.5.; a rate which for the period 1980 - 92 is reported as 1.2 in { World Development Report 1994 }[table 1, p.163]; a pretty large decline. These numbers suggest that the growth rate in 1980s has been rather low when both new technology and finance capital have been growing. Internationalization of new technology is a response to this stagnation. It is not a source of growth in the international economy."

I didn`t quite understand how finance capital hinders capitalist growth. Finance capital is appied is it not? thats the golden rule of capitalism: reinvest. Unless the financial capital its self is stagnated, then how does it promote stagnation? I would really be interested in more detailed description of the economic reasoning behind this point of view.

''The decline of capitalism must involve a decline in the operation of the law of value. both in extent and in itself. The latter refers to the increasing replacement of labour by machinery, which is leading logically to the point where value is abolished. That has not happened, as yet, but the process of automation is obvious. As a result, prices come to be arbitrary, dependent on the degree of control over the market, rather than value. The growth of 'monopoly' is an expression of this fundamental tendency. At the present time, we might expect that the lack of alignment of value and price might be partially restored in a depression. The fact, however is that there is such a serious divergence for long periods of time that it threatens the system itself in a serious downturn.''

In what sense does the expression "monopoly" translate the foreseeble exclusion of man from the production process thereby undermining "value" as we know it? "monopoly" of what?

[Kez]

Has anyone read Imperialism the highest form of capitalism?

[peaccenicked]

Sorry el che about clarity. The article is a result of insomnia. Good friend in the funny farm. life is a bit rugh at times.
Anyhow I was hoping to generate some interest on the issues involved.
I didn`t quite understand how finance capital hinders capitalist growth. Finance capital is appied is it not? thats the golden rule of capitalism: reinvest. Unless the financial capital its self is stagnated, then how does it promote stagnation? I would really be interested in more detailed description of the economic reasoning behind this point of view.
Finance capital ushered the era of false economy.
In Capital the general formula for the circulation of capital. is M-C-M'.
For Finance capital the general formula is M-M'.
Commodities are no longer in the cycle. M' has no basis in surplus value or in the actual production of real things.
The build up of the financial capital has not only caused general stagnation but deindustrialisation in advanced capitalist countries.
''In what sense does the expression "monopoly" translate the foreseeble exclusion of man from the production process thereby undermining "value" as we know it? "monopoly" of what?''
Here Ticktin is saying that monopoly in itself as such as it exists, he is not too interested in its actuality here, only the general idea as a concentration of ownership of large scale business.
He is trying to put across the idea that this concentration of industry leads to technological innovation at all times, displacing workers and therefore surplus value. The extent of this displacement if it were one hundred percent would abolish the law of value.



(Edited by peaccenicked at 11:55 pm on June 12, 2002)

[El Che]

So bear with me on this, in practice, how does M-M materialise? because M in and of its self is nothing, its an ilusion. The only thing I can think of is money lending (that is not in turn applied in C), and so the question remains, how does the increase M-M negatively affect M-C-M? Though my overview is superficial, it seems to me that there is no conection, the market is saturated by products and as far as I can see the only thing that will have a negative inpact on that is "consumer confidence", or a lack of it as it where. As long as people keep buying there will continue to be proportional growth.

(Edited by El Che at 1:23 am on June 13, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

The best way to think of it is to see M as initial outlay and m' as return. The m-c-m' is related to the buying and selling of commodities, including labour power. m-c, money for commodity, m' money from commodity.
The practice of not investing in commodities but speculating on currencies, on interest rates, takes great resources away from commodity production, this hinders growth in the manufacturing sector. It is a bit like giving up on production and going to the bookmakers except the chances of making a killing is much better. However the bookmaker do not provide socially necessary goods.

All they create an abstract false need.
Consumer 'confidence' is a stagnating influence. Routines in buying merely make for stabler profits and with increased costs drops in the rates of profit.
finance capital as it is regulated through Banks that rarely go bust, is seen by the elite as the safest way for the quickest funds. The point made by Diwan is that new technologies that provide new markets are a response to the already existant stagnating markets, even new markets bottom out and stagnate eventually which venture capitalists are abandoning for more lucrative activities like Multinational banks (MNBs)who rip off third world countries.

Finance capital by-passes concrete labour in favour of abstact labour. Ultimately the real wealth is in concrete production and money is produced to reflect that production. The false economy is so called because nothing but money is changing hands and it does not reflect on production. It is like a gigantic form of credit.
A monster that is on very weak legs. This is the background to the financial crisis in Argentina.

[El Che]

Acording to my preception, Financial Capital speculates, makes bets, on applied Capital. Applied in the creation of wealth, applied in the creation of its self. The activities mentioned can ultimately be traced back to concrete value, it could not be otherwise. The strength of a currency is dependante upon the economic strength of the respective nation, interest rates are a fee payed in return for the right to use a certain amount of capital that in turn must be applied somewhere, even if it is applied speculativly, ultimately any gain/loss must have a cause in reality and the same goes for money lending, its either invested or payed back by people like you and me through our work. I still am not quite convinced that financial capital draws resources away from production, seems to me that we are producing all we can thus profit is hard to find. But as soon as there is demand for something the vultures charge in, for there is profit in to be made. For without production all you would have is a baloon full of hot air that would brust eventualy, speculation would become a lossing proposition everywhere. Its only a winning proposition where there is growth, therefore if there is room for growth its in the interest of everthing capitalist to ocupy that room no?

[peaccenicked]

''And so, the bourgeoisie and its economists maintain that the interest of the capitalist and of the laborer is the same. And in fact, so they are! The worker perishes if capital does not keep him busy. Capital perishes if it does not exploit labor-power, which, in order to exploit, it must buy. The more quickly the capital destined for production -- the productive capital -- increases, the more prosperous industry is, the more the bourgeoisie enriches itself, the better business gets, so many more workers does the capitalist need, so much the dearer does the worker sell himself. The fastest possible growth of productive capital is, therefore, the indispensable condition for a tolerable life to the laborer.
But what is growth of productive capital? Growth of the power of accumulated labor over living labor; growth of the rule of the bourgeoisie over the working class. When wage-labor produces the alien wealth dominating it, the power hostile to it, capital, there flow back to it its means of employment -- i.e., its means of subsistence, under the condition that it again become a part of capital, that is become again the lever whereby capital is to be forced into an accelerated expansive movement.
To say that the interests of capital and the interests of the workers are identical, signifies only this: that capital and wage-labor are two sides of one and the same relation. The one conditions the other in the same way that the usurer and the borrower condition each other. ''
This from Marx gives us the key to this question.
The need for growth.
The point you are making as far as I can see is that capital is indiscriminate and follows growth. However finance capital has already undermined productive capital.
Lenin, I am afraid puts it better, and I believe that Multinational banks make things worse now.
''"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 socialized production; but the immense progress of mankind, which achieved this socialization, goes to benefit... the speculators." (p. 206-207)

"In one way or another, nearly the whole of the rest of the world is more or less the debtor to and tributary of these international banker countries, these "pillars" of world finance capital." (p. 240)

[El Che]

The point I am making is indeed that Capital follows growth but also that it is growth that is limited and not Capital. Capital wants to grow as much as possible, it wants it more than anything else, it stretches its self as much as possible and there is no more room. Growth is limited, not by production capacity, but the inverse, absortion capacity.

[peaccenicked]

absorption capacity is a limit but it is malleble to the degree finance capital will try to expand structures and establish structures for growth and trade expansion but holds local markets to ransom in the process. The tendency towards stagnation. The tendency towards stagnation in growth actually produced the WTO.
which
''According to Chossudovsky, the 1994 agreement which established the WTO “bypasses the democratic process in each of the member countries” and “deliberately derogates national laws and constitutions while providing extensive powers to global banks and multinational companies.”

“In other words,” he continues, “the process of [the] creation of the WTO following the Final Act of [the] Uruguay Round is blatantly ‘illegal'. Namely a ‘totalitarian' intergovernmental body has been casually installed in Geneva, empowered under international law with a mandate to ‘police' country level economic and social policies, derogating the sovereign rights of national governments.”