Finance capital

[Led Zeppelin]

Finance Capital

Preface

Part I Money and credit

1 The neccessity of money
2 Money in the circulation process
3 Money as a means of payment. Credit money
4 Money in the circulation of industrial capital
5 The banks and industrial credit
6 The rate of interest

Part II The mobilization of capital. Fictitious capital

7 The joint-stock company
8 The stock exchange
9 The commodity exchange
10 Bank capital and bank profit

Part III Finance capital and the restriction of free competition

11 Surmounting the obstacles to the equalization of rates of profit
12 Cartels and trusts
13 The capitalist monopolies and commerce
14 The capitalist monopolies and the banks. The transformation of capital into finance capital
15 Price determination by the capitalist monopolies and the historical tendency of finance capital

Part IV Finance capital and crises

16 The general conditions of crises
17 The causes of crises
18 Credit conditions in the course of the business cycle
19 Money capital and productive capital during the depression
20 Changes in the character of crises. Cartels and crises

Part V The economic policy of finance capital

21 The reorientation of commercial policy
22 The export of capital and the struggle for economic territory
23 Finance capital and classes
24 The conflict over the labour contract
25 The proletariat and imperialism
__________________________________________________ _______

Alright, there is the content list of the book I'm gonna type out, I have decided to type it first before I ask Marxists.org if they want it, it's pretty useless to tell them and then not be able to finish it.

As you can see from the above the book is very detailed, Hilferding goes as far as even explaining how the Socialist state could function economically, this is really a must read for any person interested in Marxist economics, although I must add that you probably won't understand it if you don't know basic Marxist economics, also, it seems to me that Hilferding is a very difficult author to read.

If you have any questions about the book you can ask them in this thread, and, since this thread is in theory, I would like to have a discussion about finance capital and the theory of imperialism.

There are some people, mainly orthodox Marxists (revisionists) who claim that imperialism doesn't exist, who claim that finance capital doesn't exist, who claim that the capital of Marx' time is the same as capital today, no wonder they call themselves orthodox Marxists! This book, and the real world, proves them wrong.

As for the book, I will use the blog option to make regular updates, I will only post a chapter when it is done, I won't post half written ones, so it might take a while, I recommend not reading it until I have finished the entire book.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Perhaps it would be better to read chapter by chapter, let us share our comments, so you are able to adjust if appropriate?

[Led Zeppelin]

Adjust in what way? Do you mean reporting spelling errors?

That is a good idea, if you see any spelling errors please PM me, and yes, I will post it chapter by chapter when they are done in my blog: Finance Capital (work in progress) (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=blog&id=11330).

[redstar2000]

Perhaps Hilferding interests you because Lenin was influenced by Finance Capital to write Imperialism - the Highest Stage of Capitalism.

Do you know who he was?


Originally posted by Wikipedia
Rudolf Hilferding (1877 - 1941) was an Austrian Marxist economist and a popularizer of the "economic" reading of Karl Marx.

A leading Marxist theorist of his day, identified with the "Austro-Marxian" group. He was the main defender to the challenge to Marx by Austrian School economist and fellow Vienna resident, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk. Hilferding also participated in the Crises Debate - disputing Marx's theory of the instability and eventual breakdown of capitalism on the basis that the concentration of capital is actually stabilizing. His most famous work was Finance Capital.

Hilferding served with Kautsky in the German Socialization Committee in 1918. He was a member of parliament for the Social Democratic Party in Germany and also served as the German Minister of Finance in 1923 and 1928-1929.

Maybe you should just transcribe the parts you really like and we could discuss that.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Led Zeppelin]

Do you know who he was?


Of course I know who he was, and yes, I know he wasn't a real Marxist, more like a revisionist, especially in politics.


Maybe you should just transcribe the parts you really like and we could discuss that.


I am not typing out the book to discuss it, I am typing it so that people can read it, this thread is to discuss finance capital, and why some orthodox Marxists don't believe it exists.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 22 2006, 03:23 PM
As you can see from the above the book is very detailed, Hilferding goes as far as even explaining how the Socialist state could function economically ...
I doubt that any "explaination" about the "functionality" of "socialist society" would have any actual contribution to the class struggle and the revolution itself.

Especially if it was written by a Kautskyist in the early 1900's.


There are some people, mainly orthodox Marxists (revisionists) who claim that imperialism doesn't exist, who claim that finance capital doesn't exist, who claim that the capital of Marx' time is the same as capital today, no wonder they call themselves orthodox Marxists! This book, and the real world, proves them wrong.


... this thread is to discuss finance capital, and why some orthodox Marxists don't believe it exists.

Where the hell did you actually meet "Orthodox Marxists" ??

As I can see, validity of their opinions died with the Socialist International in 1914. Most of them died few years after that :lol: .

[Led Zeppelin]

I doubt that any "explaination" about the "functionality" of "socialist society" would have any actual contribution to the class struggle and the revolution itself.

He was probably the most important expert of Marxist economics post-Marx, of course his views on the subject of how a Socialist economy could function are important, only lazy people with no interest in learning and educating themselves would say otherwise and completely ignore this work.


Where the hell did you actually meet "Orthodox Marxists" ??

As I can see, validity of their opinions died with the Socialist International in 1914. Most of them died few years after that .

Then you are not a Orthodox Marxist, "NovelGentry" for example is a notorious one on these boards.

[red_che]

Guys, If you do have arguments against the content of ML's post then state it.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by M-L+--> (M-L)He was probably the most important expert of Marxist economics post-Marx, of course his views on the subject of how a Socialist economy could function are important, only lazy people with no interest in learning and educating themselves would say otherwise and completely ignore this work.[/b]

He was a Kautskyist. "Orthodox" (Social-Democratic) conceptions about the functionality of "socialism" have no validity today, because their total concept of socialism was false.

If "lazy" means avoiding theoretical detours which are quite numerous considering the fact that we are all swimming in abundance of these books and theories, then you could say that I'm "lazy".

But, of course, I can understand why a Leninist would be interested in a Kautskyist.

(I wouldn't be surprised if some of you guys suggested Bernstein's 'Evolutionary Socialism'.)


M-L
Then you are not a Orthodox Marxist, "NovelGentry" for example is a notorious one on these boards.

Do you even know what an "Orthodox Marxist" means??

No?

[Led Zeppelin]

He was a Kautskyist.

Can't you look beyond petty labels?

He was a Kautskyite, and he also happened to be the person who saved Marxist economics from utter destruction by the critique of Bohm-Bahwerk.

You have no clue who he was, so don't even try to attack him for his later political convictions.


Do you even know what an "Orthodox Marxist" means??

Yes, I know what Orthodox Marxist means, evidently you don't.

I suggest looking it up somewhere, instead of pretending that you know what it means.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by M-L+--> (M-L)Yes, I know what Orthodox Marxist means, evidently you don't.[/b]

If you say that you do, so why the hell would you call me an "Orthodox Marxist"? That says enough.


Originally posted by M-[email protected]
Can't you look beyond petty labels?

Yes, I can. I proved it. Anyway, let me remind you that they exist for a reason: in example, if someone was a Kautskyist, there's a big chance that they might have done a fair analysis of finance capital (because allot of social democrats were "professional" economists), but there's also a small chance that they could have given us a valid "explaining how the Socialist state could function economically" (because their concepts of it are false).


M-L
You have no clue who he was, so don't even try to attack him for his later political convictions.

Maybe you should chill out and drop the childish act.

I'll do you favor before you start to take him too seriously without a critical standpoint. I know how you always act in defence of historical materialism and dialectics on such threads in the Philosophy forum. So I just thought that you should be warn about his anti-dialectical determinist attitude towards the prospect of socialism, the same for which he supposedly gives a "blueprint" of economic functionality. In the same book you suggested (Finanzkapital / Finance Capital) Hilferding stresses that "It should be understood how the inevitability of socialism gives no indication as to what practical attitude should be adopted. For it is one thing to recognize that something is inevitable, and quite another to put oneself in the service of that inevitability", thus rejecting the most fundamental premise of Marxian method of reasoning and acting: the two-way communication of theory and praxis, in which theory becomes practical and practice confirms it as its reflection. For Marx, the totality of historical movement is unitary with the praxis itself. Hilferding, and others like him, who overlooked their two-way communication with reality got lost in their own organizational ground.

[Led Zeppelin]

If you say that you do, so why the hell would you call me an "Orthodox Marxist"? That says enough.


I of course don't know your political history, I do know however --from the few posts of you that I have read-- that you hold a Orthodox Marxist position towards several subjects.

From that I concluded that you were an Orthodox Marxist, now you say that you are not, so I will no longer refer to you as an Orthodox Marxist.


Anyway, let me remind you that they exist for a reason: in example, if someone was a Kautskyist, there's a big chance that they might have done a fair analysis of finance capital (because allot of social democrats were "professional" economists), but there's also a small chance that they could have given us a valid "explaining how the Socialist state could function economically" (because their concepts of it are false).


Yes, but Hilferding most certainly wasn't a "Kautskyite" perse, remember for example that he voted against war-credits, while the Kautskyites voted for the war-credits.

Also, from reading his section on how a Socialist economic system could work, I have seen that he most certainly does not support the Kautskyite theory of "state-capitalism", so you have no argument against him in his economic works.


I know how you always act in defence of historical materialism and dialectics on such threads in the Philosophy forum.

Wrong, I have yet to post anything of any substance in the threads on dialectics, mostly because I acknowledge the fact that I do not know enough about dialectics to post about it in great lengths.


In the same book you suggested (Finanzkapital / Finance Capital) Hilferding stresses that "It should be understood how the inevitability of socialism gives no indication as to what practical attitude should be adopted. For it is one thing to recognize that something is inevitable, and quite another to put oneself in the service of that inevitability", thus rejecting the most fundamental premise of Marxian method of reasoning and acting: the two-way communication of theory and praxis

I don't know how you got that from that quote, where does he reject the two-way communication of theory and praxis in that quote?

You are seeing something which isn't there.

He is merely saying in that quote that even though Socialism is inevitable, that does not mean that because of that inevitability we should not be "fooled", or as he puts it; "it gives no indication as to what practical attitude should be adopted".

He is correct, because as he later says; "it is one thing to recognize that something is inevitable, and quite another to put oneself in the service of that inevitability".

For example, RS claims that Socialism is inevitable, the inevitability of Socialism does not indicate to RS what he should do in practice. RS recognizes that Socialism is inevitable, but it is quite another thing to put himself in service of that inevitability in a correct way. Now he is of the opinion that he should just "wait" for proletarian revolution to happen, that is his "theory", in upholding this "theory" he recognizes that something (Socialism) is inevitable, but he does not put himself in the service of that inevitability in a correct way.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Marxism-Leninism
For example, RS claims that Socialism is inevitable, the inevitability of Socialism does not indicate to RS what he should do in practice.

Assuming that "RS" refers to me, that's a rather drastic mis-statement of my views.

What I've said on a fair number of occasions is that the logic of historical materialism implies that communism (not "socialism") is "inevitable"...barring cataclysmic catastrophe.

But I've also made the point that this is a hypothesis that awaits confirmation in material reality. We don't "know" it's true until a viable communist society is established and works.

As to "what to do", that is up to you!

Those for whom communism would be "a bad thing" will try to delay its establishment.

Those who think it would be "a good thing" will try to accelerate its establishment.

And those who are ignorant of such matters or indifferent to them will simply take no account of the possibility at all.

What else would you expect?

History does not come with an "owner's manual" or even a decent "help" menu.

There are no strategic or tactical conclusions that can be reasonably drawn from the premise that "communism is inevitable".

Strategy and tactics arise from a specific analysis of a specific period...usually in a specific country or even locality.

And that specific analysis can be a very good one or can be so bad that everything you do will be counterproductive.

But regardless of how things turn out, IF Marx was right, then communism is still "inevitable".

And, of course, if Marx was wrong, then nothing you do will make any difference except, at most, to the shape of class society. :(

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Led Zeppelin]

What I've said on a fair number of occasions is that the logic of historical materialism implies that communism (not "socialism") is "inevitable"...barring cataclysmic catastrophe.


Your lack of knowledge of Marxism comes to light.

When Hilferding spoke of "Socialism" he was referring to the first phase of Communism.

Like Marx:

Originally posted by Marx
"But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged, after prolonged birth pangs, from capitalist society. Law can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby."


But I've also made the point that this is a hypothesis that awaits confirmation in material reality. We don't "know" it's true until a viable communist society is established and works.


I did not know this, I take back what I said, instead of RS insert another person who does believe that Socialism is inevitable.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Marx
But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged, after prolonged birth pangs, from capitalist society. Law can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

This is another example of an "inevitability" hypothesis. There's no way to determine if it's true until it happens.

Marx's hypothesis of "lower" and "higher" stages of communism was based, of course, on the material conditions of his era.

The Leninists interpreted such statements as to justify the prolonged despotism of a vanguard party.

That's one of their numerous departures from the Marxist paradigm "in the name of Marx".

But in more general terms, if Marx was right about this "lower" and "higher" stuff in 1875, will he still be right in 2075?

The semi-literate and superstition-ridden proletariat of 1875 did not look very promising. And the productive capabilities of that era clearly had "a long way to go" to secure "abundance for all".

How will things look, by comparison, towards the middle or end of this century?

I contend that the "lower stage" will probably be completely skipped and we'll roll into the "higher stage" without any significant interruption.

It will be a "common sense" decision based on the material conditions of that era.

Things have changed...and will continue to do so. :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif