Log in

View Full Version : Finance capital and parasitism



TC
3rd April 2007, 20:41
I've just read this article 'Britain, parasitic and decaying capitalism'
http://www.rcgfrfi.easynet.co.uk/about/FRFI194_07_10.pdf

and while its not especially originally, i think its a brilliantly succinct demonstration of the real application of Lenin's theory of imperialism, which is to say monopoly rather than competitive capitalism, as it applies to the world today.

This article addresses much of the dogma and self-denial of the petty bourgeois "revolutionary" left which has avoided analyzing it directly.

It demonstrates:

*the parasitic, unproductive nature of finance capital and imperialism

*the existence of a labour aristocracy whose lifestyle is subsidized by the superprofits of neo-colonial exploitation, who produce minimal or no capital themselves and are likewise parasitic.

*the shocking extent to which imperialist finance capital rather than merely capitalist industrial capital dominates the domestic economies of United Kingdom and to a lesser extent United States.

*the failure of the left in the imperialist world to have an honest account of the class divisions and changing nature of its own working class and the reality of hyper-exploitation in the productive third world labour.


Its short and compact, i would encourage everyone to read it.


In the same topic i'd like to draw people's attention to "Imperialism and the split in socialism" by Lenin:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/oct/x01.htm



"A privileged upper stratum of the proletariat in the imperialist countries lives partly at the expense of hundreds of millions in the uncivilised nations."- Lenin

"
Secondly, why does England’s monopoly explain the (temporary) victory of opportunism in England? Because monopoly yields superprofits, i.e., a surplus of profits over and above the capitalist profits that are normal and customary all over the world. The capitalists can devote a part (and not a small one, at that!) of these superprofits to bribe their own workers, to create something like an alliance (recall the celebrated “alliances” described by the Webbs of English trade unions and employers) between the workers of the given nation and their capitalists against the other countries. England’s industrial monopoly was already destroyed by the end of the nineteenth century." -Lenin

"The English proletariat is actually becoming more and more bourgeois, so that this most bourgeois of all nations is apparently aiming ultimately at the possession of a bourgeois aristocracy and a bourgeois proletariat alongside the bourgeoisie. For a nation which exploits the whole world this is of course to a certain extent justifiable."- Engels, October 7 1858, Letter to Marx

Goatse
3rd April 2007, 23:37
Looks good, will read it.

ComradeRed
10th April 2007, 01:01
TC wanted me to reply to this thread, so I started reading and got to this point:

Originally posted by TC's Article+--> (TC's Article) But as will be shown, the British left acknowledges the existence of imperialism only to deny imperalism's central characteristics[/b]And being ignorant of the Leninist theory of imperialism I asked for a good introduction to the idear. I was linked Lenin's Imperialism and the Spit in Socialism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/oct/x01.htm).

However after reading it I still really wasn't convinced or even certain of its validity as a theory. A great deal of it didn't seem to make sense using basic empiricism (perhaps that was my downfall: I thought about what I read and compared it to reality :o).

I will quote from the linked article by Lenin unless stated otherwise.


Originally posted by [email protected]
We have to begin with as precise and full a definition of imperialism as possible. Imperialism is a specific historical stage of capitalism. Its specific character is threefold: imperialism is monopoly capitalism; parasitic, or decaying capitalism; moribund capitalism. Since there really hasn't been a monopoly in capitalism that has lasted more than a few years (if that), I would suspect that old Lenin really means "oligopoly capitalism" but that's semantics and irrelevant.

But if Imperialism were really when capitalism is decaying and moribund, then there's a problem here:

Lenin
Imperialism, as the highest stage of capitalism in America and Europe, and later in Asia, took final shape in the period 1898–1914. So in other words, America has been on its death bed for over a century now :lol:

This probably doesn't phase Leninists since they believe that a vanguard party is necessary to overthrow capitalism, it will be a tough fight, yaddah yaddah yaddah; but rather simple empiricism tells us that Lenin was wrong here.

But suppose that Lenin is right, that is how capitalism looks "on its death bed". Should we be concerned at all that a late capitalist state "on its deathbed" is as powerful as the U$?


The supplanting of free competition by monopoly is the fundamental economic feature, the quintessence of imperialism. Monopoly manifests itself in five principal forms: (1) cartels, syndicates and trusts—the concentration of production has reached a degree which gives rise to these monopolistic associations of capitalists; (2) the monopolistic position of the big banks—three, four or five giant banks manipulate the whole economic life of America, France, Germany; (3) seizure of the sources of raw material by the trusts and the financial oligarchy (finance capital is monopoly industrial capital merged with bank capital); --italics are Lenin's

OK, this doesn't sound anything peculiar for capitalism. According to the General Law of Accumulation, that's how it's supposed to look like. That's the whole point of the Historical Tendency of Capitalist Accumulation (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch32.htm)!

These features are features of late capitalism in particular. Lenin's theory of imperialism would require something a little more significant than just this.


(4) the (economic) partition of the world by the international cartels has begun. There are already over one hundred such international cartels, which command the entire world market and divide it "amicably" among themselves—until war redivides it. --italics are again Lenin's

This is still telling us nothing new, just reiterating the logical extension of the historical tendency of capitalist accumulation.


The export of capital, as distinct from the export of commodities under non-monopoly capitalism, is a highly characteristic phenomenon and is closely linked with the economic and territorial-political partition of the world; Now this is getting interesting.

The export of (constant) capital is a characteristic phenomenon of this theory of imperialism Lenin has. Well, looking back through out history, every (capitalist) empire has done this...but not every such empire has been "moribund capitalism".

I'd reject Lenin's prerequisite that imperialism is "moribund capitalism", as that is empirically not a prerequisite (England? France? America? All of these are moribund capitalist societies when they were/are empires? :lol: )

As for "capitalism in decay", that sounds nice but it's meaningless to me.

Then a thought occurred to me: what's the pragmatic difference between "capitalism in decay" and "moribund capitalism"?

Lenin lists off a series of characteristics of "capitalism in decay":

The fact that imperialism is parasitic or decaying capitalism is manifested first of all in the tendency to decay, which is characteristic of every monopoly under the system of private ownership of the means of production. So decaying capitalism...decays. Captain obvious strikes again!

But this is a characteristic of "every monopoly" in this "imperialist capitalism". By virtue of such standards, there has never been an imperialist capitalism!


Secondly, the decay of capitalism is manifested in the creation of a huge stratum of rentiers, capitalists who live by “clipping coupons”. Hmm...something is odd here. A "stratum" of capitalists who live not by the surplus value of capital but by clipping coupons :huh:


Thirdly, export of capital is parasitism raised to a high pitch. What? What the hell does this have to do with identifying "capitalism in decay"?!?


Fourthly, “finance capital strives for domination, not freedom”. "Finance Capital", a term which has yet to be defined or explained in the article by Lenin, is rather meaningless here.


Fifthly, the exploitation of oppressed nations—which is inseparably connected with annexations—and especially the exploitation of colonies by a handful of “Great” Powers, increasingly transforms the “civilised” world into a parasite on the body of hundreds of millions in the uncivilised nations. But this would happen with all colonies regardless of whether the "Mother Country" were "capitalism in decay" or not!

Upon seeing my hopes of having "capitalism in decay" explained coherently, I returned to where I was before I skimmed ahead.


(5) the territorial partition of the world (colonies) is completed. --Italics are Lenin's

What is this even supposed to mean today?

Is it that corporations have finished their "colonization" or...what?

Perhaps a good start is a way to identify "neo-colonies" as the term is thrown around with much ambiguity...usually trying to metaphorically state that independent nations today are under severe pressure from nations like the U$ to commit to certain actions or "face the consequences". That's cronyism though, not colonialism.


Neither Marx nor Engels lived to see the imperialist epoch of world capitalism, which began not earlier than 1898–1900. But it has been a peculiar feature of England that even in the middle of the nineteenth century she already revealed at least two major distinguishing features of imperialism: (1) vast colonies, and (2) monopoly profit (due to her monopoly position in the world market). So the British East India Company, which was around in 1857 when it had it's little debacle, and the British and British and French were non-existent in Marx's times? :huh:

Remember "the sun never sets on the british empire"?


The industrial monopoly of England, he [Kautsky] says, has long ago been broken, has long ago been destroyed, and there is nothing left to destroy.

Why is this argument false?

Because, firstly, it overlooks England’s colonial monopoly. --bold is added, Italics are Lenin's

I'm getting a little worried here with old Lenin.

England qualifies, under Lenin's newer given definition, as being imperialist. But Marx and Engels never "properly assessed" this "capitalism in decay"...despite correctly analyzing capitalism "for their times".

My conclusion is that this little "Theory of Imperialism" Lenin has is bollocks.

====

A brief note on the table in this pamphlet, page 1, table 1, row 1, the "% increase 1997-2005" entry is off by 10%, it should read "224.1" not "214.1". Yes, I did recalculate out that table, and I did it again taking into account inflation. It was a poorly written pamphlet in my opinion as it didn't really present where exactly it got these statistics, just "statistics.gov.uk" :angry:

Die Neue Zeit
10th April 2007, 04:31
Since there really hasn't been a monopoly in capitalism that has lasted more than a few years (if that), I would suspect that old Lenin really means "oligopoly capitalism" but that's semantics and irrelevant.

Again, per my hourglass discussion, and per an "update" through Globalisation? Internationalisation and Monopoly Capitalism: Historical Processes and Capitalist Dynamism (http://eh.net/bookreviews/library/0834), a multinational does NOT need to control the entire market in which it operates in order to be a monopoly. Consider Microsoft and Intel, and compare them to their smaller, "niche" competitors (Cisco and AMD, for example). Consider Starbucks, too.



In mainstream microeconomics, we live in a world of "monopolistic competition," which ties quite a bit into the theory of monopoly capitalism.

ComradeRed
10th April 2007, 05:13
Originally posted by Hammer+April 09, 2007 07:31 pm--> (Hammer @ April 09, 2007 07:31 pm)
Since there really hasn't been a monopoly in capitalism that has lasted more than a few years (if that), I would suspect that old Lenin really means "oligopoly capitalism" but that's semantics and irrelevant.

Again, per my hourglass discussion, and per an "update" through Globalisation? Internationalisation and Monopoly Capitalism: Historical Processes and Capitalist Dynamism (http://eh.net/bookreviews/library/0834), a multinational does NOT need to control the entire market in which it operates in order to be a monopoly. Consider Microsoft and Intel, and compare them to their smaller, "niche" competitors (Cisco and AMD, for example). Consider Starbucks, too.

In mainstream microeconomics, we live in a world of "monopolistic competition," which ties quite a bit into the theory of monopoly capitalism.[/b]
Let me pull out my microeconomics textbook (Hal R. Varian's "Intermediate Microeconomics"):


Pg. 461
An Industry structure such as that described above shares elements of both competition and monopoly; it is therefore referred to as monopolistic competition. [The text sets requirements on the demand curve for products, it has some market power] On the other hand the firms must compete for customers in terms of both price and the kinds of products they sell. Furthermore, there are no restrictions against new firms entering into a monopolistically competitive industry. In these aspects the industry is like a competitive industry.

Monopolistic competition is probably the most prevalent form of industry structure. Unfortunately it is also the most difficult to analyze. The extreme cases of pure monopoly and pure competition are much simpler and can be used as first approximations to more elaborate models of monopolistic competition.

So in other words it's not a monopoly, but there's inertia in the market. But there's not any "legal" inertia. Wikipedia (as if this will hold any weight :lol:) notes that "The characteristics of a monopolistically competitive market are almost the same as in perfect competition, with the exception of heterogeneous products, and that monopolistic competition involves a great deal of non-price competition (based on subtle product differentiation)."

As opposed to a monopoly, which Varian defines as "A situation where a market is dominated by a single seller of a product is known as a monopoly" (bold is Varian's, page 12).

So it can't, by virtue of elementary empiricism, be a monopoly...which is all together misleading.

Regardless, it cannot be denied that this concentration of capital happens as predicted by Marx in Capital. There really is nothing new here with the idea of concentration of capital, as I've said previously.