I wrote that before reading Rob's well-written post. He explains better than me
IMO, but here is nevertheless what I answered to Tony. It's not totally
redundant. BTW, Rob, I did admit to Tony off-list that I've ceased to consider
myself a "real marxist" for years (I even favour Hobson over what I've read
about Lenin!), but I am certainly heavily influenced by marxism.
Scroll lower for three questions to Rob about his post.
>Finance capital acts with great purpose in trying to maximize profit,
>Julien. In running governments. In setting monetary policies.
>And suppressing resistance to its rule.
Sure it acts with great "purpose" in *trying* to maximize profit, just like water
acts with great purpose in flowing through a siphon. If finance capital could
control itself, it wouldn't need regulations for its own sake as it does.
How does finance capital run governments? It lobbies them, sure. Look at the
job Rubin got after getting away from his public office. But how does it run
them?
Monetary policies are something internal to finance, so it's not relevant. I'm not
saying that these policies have no impacts out of finance, but if finance capital
was acting with self-conscience and purpose, it wouldn't need monetary
policies to achieve the same results.
Suppressing resistance to its rule is something that other entities do. Finance
does it badly on itself. For example, if a country makes regulations hostile to
finance or defaults or something of the sort it will still be able to find money to
loan remarkably quickly because of the competitive pressure between
financial institutions and lenders. They want to lend their money. They have so
much of it on their hands.
>You seem to be saying that finance capital JUST IS, therefore we should
>just take it for granted, and not give it importance or centrality in
>being the cause of imperialism.
No. What I said is that it's behaviour currently (there were periods
where conspiracy theories were more plausible) is the product of the rules of
the game... which we CAN alter!
But yes, I did argue that we should not give it centrality in the process of
imperialism (Nestor's definition). This is because of the thinness of the barriers
between finance and other capital. Is General Electric a representent of
financial or industrial capital (not to mention its involvement in nonfinancial
services)? This is also because if fianance is central, then you'll either have to
consider the USA or Japan/Europe as non-imperialist. If indebtment is the
criteria, then the USA is a victim of imperialism and if it's current account
balances, the other core powers are the victims and on the top of it your
criteria would be very volatile. In financial terms, the USA is looking more and
more like an "Asian tiger" (the importance of the dollar still makes a huge
difference... for now). Is it becoming less imperialist for that reason? Maybe
you could think about indebtment in a foreign currency as the criteria for beign
a victim of imperialism. I see no other way. But anyway, all these financial
things are the products of voluntary agreements between all parties as long
as there are no more tangible (bullying) manifestations of imperialism. You
could argue that governments such as the one of Mexico are not democratic
and not nationalist, but is the one of the USA more democratic or nationalist? It
all comes down to the interests of capital as a whole against the interests of
labor in the end IMO.
>Once again, you seem to want to dismiss the financial sector in the
>imperialist First World countries as having any real impact on anything,
Not at all. I was talking about central bankers. I spoke about "*very* important
powers", right? I was saying that they were not managing the world, first
because their control is partial and limited, and second because it's highly
indirect. In other words, all they have is a big stick and they can't fix clockworks
with it.
>Imperialism to you... remains the bully in the back alley pummelling
>someone smaller.
That comment about East Timor beign small was really too much for you isn't
it? We've talked enough about that, let's move ahead, OK?
>I just
>posted an article on another list, about how the main Guatemalan
>business group had confesssed that 250,000 jobs were lost in that
>country of 12,000,000, the last year alone. That is imperialism.
I have no idea of the situation nor of the cause, but it could be many other
things. Was the famous crisis of 1929+ the product of imperialism?
>Julien replys
><We want the facts! And the criterion used to grade different
>destructive forces. Give them or be hanged by the people!>
>
>Julien, I'm almost at a loss here with you.
Look, Tony. You said you knew about a scientific consensus about that or
soemthing of the sort. You asked me off-list to ask you on-list about it. I did.
>What other sector of the economy even comes close to causing the
>ecological destruction the military does? Farming, cattle grazing,
>timber cutting ...
My uninformed speculation is that these three are indeed WAY more
destructive than militarism. And we could talk about civilian activities more
degrading but less widespread.
>... , insurance?.... surely not. And much of mining and
>oil extraction is directly and indirectly related to military usage.
Much, OK. But what percentage? This is what we need to get a good idea on
the issue. My uninformed guess is a low percentage. As to mining, gold is not
used much in the military, isn't it?
But maybe I do not see the whole "indirect" picture. Are you arguing that what
is consumed in any technology originally developed for military use is related
to miliatry usage f.ex.?
>The militarism of capitalist society pervades all its economic
>actiivites.
How? More than, say, pig raising pervades them?
Rob says,
>Ya gotta be a George Soros to show
>restraint like that without watching your clients take a walk.
Even he is turning bullish I've heard.
>... [about CEOs/corporations] and thus become dependent on
>a finance sector whose future they threaten at every turn.
Threaten? What do you mean?
>The Grotian neoliberalism
What's that Grotian thing?
>as the left is way underdeveloped for a scenario the fascistic far
>right has often proven itself extremely adept at exploiting.
Don't you think that the left must be developed before the fascistic right
becomes a danger? Currently the far-right and the ruling class do not look very
fond of each other. Do you believe that the far-right can take power without the
suport of an afraid ruling class?
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
