[STUDY GROUP] Imperialism Study Group

[Amusing Scrotum]

Okay, following on from this thread which discussed the two prefaces and Chapter 1, this is the thread to discuss Chapter 2: BANKS AND THEIR NEW ROLE. Please add your thoughts and comments.

[Amusing Scrotum]

All quotes from Chapter 2 of Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism.

Originally posted by Lenin+--> (Lenin)As banking develops and becomes concentrated in a small number of establishments....[/b]

Lenin goes on to give figures, but really this is the kind of statement that is backed up by normal observation. I mean, I've never seen a "small bank"....rather, I've only seen the big banks"; Natwest, Lloyd's and so on. The little local banks that you see on Murder She Wrote, don't seem to exist in the real world.

Originally posted by Lenin@
The change from the old type of capitalism, in which free competition predominated, to the new capitalism, in which monopoly reigns....

I'm not positive that this "change" could be said to have been made. I mean, for instance, in I think On Free Trade, both Marx and Engels moaned about how Germany, France and America preferred protection and monopoly over free competion....and how this, and some other stuff, was leading to the British bourgeois abandoning free enterprise.

To me, it seems that the bourgeois will drift between monopoly and competition when it suits their interests. So, for instance, in Britain where there has been a State Monopoly on both Healthcare and Education for decades, the British bourgeois, or at least a section of it, seems to want to "open up" said sectors.

And, likewise, from the moment Gas systems really took "hold", there was a monopoly on the installation of said systems. Yet, at some point in the sixties the Gas Act (?) came about and the market was "opened up". So now all you need to install Gas pipework are the relevant qualifications.

So, to me, this indicates that capitalism retains the capacity to work on a basis of free competition....not that it ever seems to have had the attributes that Lenin describes it as having. I mean, Britain never really worked on a free competition basis in its colonies.

Lenin

....the result is that the industrial capitalist becomes more completely dependent on the bank.

What interests me about this, is not so much the dynamic between the big banks and the industrial capitalists, but the relationship between the big banks and small(ish) industry. I mean, banks often give out substantial loans to new ventures....and I suspect this is a good method of creating an absolute dependency from the beginning. So, perhaps, in a sense, certain banks could be said to own many small businesses....and that these businesses are, well, branches of said bank.

[RedJacobin]

Originally posted by Lenin
At the same time a personal link-up, so to speak, is established between the banks and the biggest industrial and commercial enterprises, the merging of one with another through the acquisition of shares, through the appointment of bank directors to the Supervisory Boards (or Boards of Directors) of industrial and commercial enterprises, and vice versa.

Look at this website for a modern illustration of what Lenin is saying:

http://www.theyrule.net/

For example, if you pull up Citigroup, a big bank, you'll see that the people who sit on its Board of Directors also have positions on the Boards of:

Lucent Technologies, PepsiCo, Cummins, Raytheon, Automatic Data Processing, Johnson & Johnson, Lyondell Chemical, Yum Brands, Calpine, Halliburton, AT&T, Ford Motor, and on and on

The data is from 2004, so it might not be entirely accurate for today, but the point is clear.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism@Jul 15 2006, 10:33 AM
I'm not positive that this "change" could be said to have been made. I mean, for instance, in I think On Free Trade, both Marx and Engels moaned about how Germany, France and America preferred protection and monopoly over free competion....and how this, and some other stuff, was leading to the British bourgeois abandoning free enterprise.

Marx and Engels described the trend towards greater concentration of capital - a trend which is an inherent result of the working of the market. Smaller capitalists are gobbled up by bigger ones. Lenin was describing how far the trend had advanced since their time. (And it's continued advancing since Lenin's time.)

This isn't the same thing, exactly, as the question of protectionism vs free trade; that doesn't necessarily have an overall direction to the same degree. Though the two are interrelated, I'd agree to that extent.

So, for instance, in Britain where there has been a State Monopoly on both Healthcare and Education for decades, the British bourgeois, or at least a section of it, seems to want to "open up" said sectors.

That's also a different question: privatization, and the gutting of social services. National Health and state education were both concessions to the working class, given under the pressure of workers' struggles. Their rollback is driven by the need to slash the social wage. It's part of the general offensive against the working class.

That's true of the privatization of industries in Europe in most cases, too.

When Lenin's talking about monopoly, he doesn't necessarily mean just one company owning everything. In Chapter 1 he makes the point that monopoly can't end overproduction and periodic crises. It doesn't end competition. (He points out that the suppression of competition in one industry is at the expense of others, and intensifies competition and crises in others.)

The tendency of the market is to concentrate capital in just a few hands. These few giant concerns sometimes divide the market between them, thereby limiting competition. Most antitrust laws try to prevent collusion between these few giant concerns, price fixing and so forth. With limited success since the law of the state is trying to combat an underlying objective law of capitalism.

But periodically, the thieves fall out. Competition breaks through and price wars are pursued more ruthlessly than before, with the great resources of these giant companies.

What interests me about this, is not so much the dynamic between the big banks and the industrial capitalists, but the relationship between the big banks and small(ish) industry. I mean, banks often give out substantial loans to new ventures....and I suspect this is a good method of creating an absolute dependency from the beginning. So, perhaps, in a sense, certain banks could be said to own many small businesses....and that these businesses are, well, branches of said bank.

Right. The larger corporations of today are no longer industrial capitalists in the sense Carnegie was. They are concentrations of finance capital, like the U.S. Steel Corporation set up by Morgan's bank. Stocks and bonds are forms of finance capital.

As fats points out, most if not all major corporations are highly interlinked with the banks. But the banks do effectively own a lot of smaller businesses through debts. (And sometimes larger ones, due to leveraged buyouts and so forth.)

I've had the misfortune of working for some smaller manufacturing operations, and they are constantly kicked around by larger capitalists - customers, suppliers, creditors if they're in debt....etc. And of course they turn around and take it out of their employees' hides. We're supposed to subsidize their inefficiency and weakness, in the hope of keeping our jobs.

[kurt]

To me, it seems that the bourgeois will drift between monopoly and competition when it suits their interests. So, for instance, in Britain where there has been a State Monopoly on both Healthcare and Education for decades, the British bourgeois, or at least a section of it, seems to want to "open up" said sectors.

Well, I don't think that's exactly how it works. State "monopolies" are somewhat different in character from the monopolies that Lenin is describing here. A state monopoly is basically "forced" onto the system by the state (for whatever reason), and private capital is unallowed to reign free in this particular area the state has "protected".

When Lenin speaks about monopolies, I believe he's speaking about the monopolies that arise from the day to day nature of capitalism. They're the "natural" ones.

And, likewise, from the moment Gas systems really took "hold", there was a monopoly on the installation of said systems. Yet, at some point in the sixties the Gas Act (?) came about and the market was "opened up". So now all you need to install Gas pipework are the relevant qualifications.

Well, I&#39;m assuming you&#39;re talking about a state monopoly on gas systems in Britain (correct if I&#39;m wrong <_<). Perhaps the gas pipework industry will become more monopolized now that it has been "freed up" and private capital has been allowed access? I think that&#39;s what Lenin would be maintaining.

What interests me about this, is not so much the dynamic between the big banks and the industrial capitalists, but the relationship between the big banks and small(ish) industry. I mean, banks often give out substantial loans to new ventures....and I suspect this is a good method of creating an absolute dependency from the beginning. So, perhaps, in a sense, certain banks could be said to own many small businesses....and that these businesses are, well, branches of said bank.

I&#39;m not sure if this applies, but look what Lenin quotes from Geld und Bankwesen

". . . undertakings which are unacceptable to us. We deeply regret that, for these reasons, we are obliged henceforth to withdraw the credit which has been hitherto allowed to you".

Lenin then mentions that this particular act of "oppression" (as small capital would call it), was directed towards an entire syndicate which fell under the category of small capital.

[Janus]

Sorry about posting kinda late but I&#39;ve been somewhat busy with some legal stuff.


Anyways,
The best example of what Lenin is talking about that I can think of would be the case of J.P. Morgan.

In fact, the chapter even talks about his bank.

When you have an immensely influential bank like Morgan&#39;s , the lines between it and actual industries are somewhat blurred as can be seen by his purchase of Carnegie&#39;s US Steel. Lenin goes quite in depth into these mergers and accumulations and the theme remains the same.

Morgan was also quite invaluable to the gov. and even bought out several railroad companies. These types of exapansion are quite common especially with the larger banks.

[Janus]

I&#39;m moving this to the Study group so it can be archived there.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Sorry I took so long to respond....not that I have a reason mind you, I just couldn&#39;t arsed. <_<

Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)Lenin was describing how far the trend had advanced since their time.[/b]

Maybe this is a semantics thing, but to me, it doesn&#39;t seem like Lenin&#39;s acknowledging a "trend". Rather, it seems that he sees a clear distinction between two era&#39;s/epochs of capitalism....which doesn&#39;t really confirm the "trend" analysis, which would be far more fluid.

I can&#39;t be bothered to look up the exact quote, but in that Chapter, somewhere, Lenin mentions that the turn of the 20th century can be seen as the point where the "change" was made. And, to me, once again, that seems to sudden of a break to denote a "trend".

After all, to use an analogy, a trend is something gradual like the general ageing process. What Lenin seems to be emphasising is something more sudden....like say the menopause or puberty. My analogies don&#39;t half seem to be getting worse.

Anyway, the point is that I&#39;m happy with the analysis that it is a "general trend"....my objection is to the idea that is some sort of fundamental change. Exemplified best by those who adhere to decadence theory....something which seems far too mechanical for even my tastes.

Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)National Health and state education were both concessions to the working class, given under the pressure of workers&#39; struggles.[/b]

Uh, Healthcare, at least, wasn&#39;t. It was a post-War policy that the British bourgeois needed in order to have a workforce capable of carrying out the necessary post-War reconstruction. And, I&#39;ve certainly never seen anything that would suggest that in the 1945-1950 era there was a specific drive by the working class and its organisations to get this.

But whether you view this as "gutting" or not; it still serves as an example of the bourgeois breaking up a significant Monopoly in order to facilitate their own profit margins.

Originally posted by kurt
State "monopolies" are somewhat different in character from the monopolies that Lenin is describing here.

Possibly. But my general point was that I think it&#39;s somewhat naive to try and "pin" the bourgeois down to one specific tendency....and that, instead, the bourgeois will use different methods to gain profits when it best serves their interests.

Originally posted by kurt
....and private capital is unallowed to reign free in this particular area the state has "protected".

It still makes a killing though. I mean, whether it "reigns free" or not, the fact that there is a State Monopoly on Education allows a few sectors (textbook companies and so on) to make massive amounts of money. Which, effectively, creates a form of Monopoly in these sectors....by removing free competition and limiting State contracts to a few "well connected" capitalists.

kurt

@
They&#39;re the "natural" ones.

I don&#39;t see the distinction myself. What&#39;s "natural" about a group of rich men decided to create a Monopoly of Private businesses and what&#39;s not "natural" about those same rich fellas deciding to bring certain sectors under State control and create a State controlled Monopoly?

kurt

Perhaps the gas pipework industry will become more monopolized now that it has been "freed up" and private capital has been allowed access?

Private capital has been allowed access for almost half a century now....and, from what I can tell, anything but "monopolization" is occurring. Indeed, in the Construction Industry in general, there&#39;s a distinct trend towards sub-contracting stuff out....instead of a large company having a workforce.

For instance, a mate of mine was going to try and get me a job as a labourer. And, if I had got the job, I would have been a sub-contracted labourer....who, technically, would have been the equivalent of a sole trader.